





















































































































































































































o • » 



'••• A & ' 


* cP U a 
■* ' J ^. • 

•'& *b % ^T«* A ... ,v 

0' «”'“■> ''o A . >'•» <** o" t’"< "*o 

C o 4^ +W^," r %■ C \tf5Stw - ° 

.V^mV v + :MnkP- ?*<£^KV. "of 


«►’ 



^ * * ' 1 * ' A 0 




^ ° ° r< ' 

,. ^ % *>%t-‘ y 

&. 0*0 ^ 

,v *-.^* y 

<y / 




c* -^wr-V n 0 ^ 

4 V °^ * ' 1 * A° *> 

v x f ’ * -a 'c x 0" »i^L/* 

• ^ ** ,>Va % ^ <4 * % 

- AMIA o ^ £ 



cf> ^n 

^ , V •> •.VV.* y \ -J ^r , 

A . **•. <** ,o~ ••••* <3 A .-•-. -a 

t - 7~. C • o ^ ♦ j ?/fl77?2p V 



^ A 40fg§^ 



'o V 

V*. 





° ^ 

y ' * ^T»* y 

■•-•'- > V .’•»- c\ .0* , 

**. y .’aVv« V A .* 

Vv 

.$ *V : Hl^ « A 

...•* o* '‘.^’ a v <b ’b, *-Trr*’ / 

* •- '* -o / :#1- *^o< ■Kr^ 



l v *< ) 

% ‘ ^ • ’ y • y J y y 

^ r *u* 

♦ y '• 




^o 

4 O 

L ■ %<• 



^° y , 

o * o y, 

O * * Cj ^ 

^ 

* *•- % y > 






o V 

y •v 


4 O 
-a? >o 

V o - , 

f° 

’ • °- c* .o **’■'» r, 


x* 

y. 


\ > <y ' ° • * 

A ^ * *• ' ® - 

4^ pL>smZ - ^L 

y y *■ Jp-w/'AA * 'Pj. J$ 
o V . ^ qv 



y v 



* c? ^rv 

4- V -» ‘WBJ^ ^ 

O' o °.* ' ♦. O_ . 1 o 

• r c 



4*^ 


'o V 

* aOt * S^IUj^v? * < o 

, # ^ii\\\\\i » /$■ ** • APpfiWzj? * b ^ ^ ^ 

* v ' 7 ’ 0 * 4-* C> * '■ ' ' p ’> j, ^ 

••• \^' 4. "’■ y ^ *..•’ y - 

,vo y ^ v N .l-»- ^ 

* vV ♦ rC(\ Av° C^ 

\ ° ^ V 

.0 o 0 "** O 

^ :^te %v^ ^ 

0< V ^°' V' A 0 ' ^ 

T * °-- cv *0' »* V 1 a P V v ► ’ * ^ .<) 4 » * • , 

;<■ % ,y a y /,*«-»-•- +* ^ 

k° *.s> . s«y$ : y,y y 

* <*S vT* a ; % . 

* .6X . ,V 



' o 



4 O 
j? A<s 



y v v. 





.«** <^ 4. 'O.A 




^ 'vm\\\N> '.» y 

x. . y » k 

ri» * <lf 

V "o-o 0 


* 

.« ^ < ’"° w **’' AT ^ *01,0°* °0 

^.-0. A V V zJwfW.% 4. ^ 







o 'V 


(y 


✓ ••* A 6 = '..** A 'o..* ,&* ♦A' 1 

^ / ,•■•. ■'b ,4> . . ' • . <* A 

-r ^ O 4 * ” + " U 

4 \ ■< AXrfV a ’ ? &n[//y5^ - 

5 


^oV 
*° 

r V^V V^V 

• C\ A 0 **•*% *> ^ 

^ f?. 5) • «£ „ A t 

«Y A .VSsX. A 
^ C, s . elites . 

I>*. 


> O’ <; 


, . A* °*. ♦•.’* *° 

^ V * 1 4 °* o .0 ,*'•/ 

^ 4. * n * ’fV* < \®’ 

^ A r ^\^C/^3 - . v * jSiy' 

* < 0 ^ * <$? '“^x ° ? 

\ V , l* ' * . 'O' rv > o * O . *>s 

^ r. . C . v 



p\ yA o " Q 

r 0 0 LvrsJ * 0_ 

* flC/f///V*>_ *y ■'- * c c a5\A ,\,% v v 

-ot> :/§M& : ^ o' ? 

• </ % / v : - * • y 

V «•’•«- C\ *0 **AL'* V 

** ** • i ^Va % V, ^dSfef* ^ ^ * 

: M&m : ^ v • <dP§ii: 

'iKifv yy \ 

.:•*/ V^’/ o 

^ .m*.. v y .•■'_*» + 






“A-A 0 ° 7 '-T^-' y °o ‘ : ' ■’* y 

°- <A a 0 * 3 •*'♦ *> V % *’•*, t s»* 

* 'r. A T ’ ^ J^Ttai^V <* .^x V. »■ . 6? • V<S -T’ V £&$]$' 

o ,v 'Sifl' ’a •itCv'Sg'A,* <>„ A < ■?'".-im 

’. • j # 111 ,# ?. *• 'isM*. J \f c P 

'-4 « .V^* "L / f , '/-V^s^\ a- ^ 

? * a v ■ o Mj y?& '^\j>- • 

» ■» . * ^ 4 <jV va 

’A <^ * ‘ * sfy 

A> ..... >. ^ 


^ » aVa. 

. -v ■ ? . 

A" 0 r1 * ' * ** \ /S> <*,- "® • * 

^ 0 V o 0 "*-* O *••'•* <S‘ f 

-^*7; ^ * ?xi ^'* 

' * rs 


*^. .^ o 1 o" ^ 

* • - 0 ' *$> °<u * * *' * f° * • - ° 0 .y 

rj* v\ v ’ij\¥A » "\r .V * filll® • 

* ^ ^ 


v’ 


»• • 


4 ,cr 'o .. * 

. ■% C°'' -iv °o 

.„* ^-0^ :^K- 

j0 *-f' , * ^ O *■ * <0 -rf- 

r. ^ ^ S&Tr** f\ 

••■’■’ y %**.-•/ % •-’•* / 

' A° >'^L'. > V % .'••• C\ ,0' , 

V A ^ A^ .V\Va % y a .V 

a v *v "ww.* a v a> 

v > -y#v .* y a v •-* °., 

<\ 'o,>* .0 o ‘ , '^,. 5 , A <y 'o.x 

■•“'♦. ^ °o /,^. ^ 

:. A 0 < ;^0T: ^ 

A°x. ''>^^; j. 0 -^, *. 





, - V* 6 s 

* i 


.» 








/ 


C ft m O A ‘ O nn i lie r «Auv «. 

\ i f 

V 0 W 4 


BUCHANAN AND BRECKINRIDGE. 


THE 


DEMOCRATIC HAND-BOOK, 


> ; /.V 


COMPILED BY 


MICH. W. CLUSKEY, 


WASHINGTON CITY, D. C. 


RECOMMENDED BY THE 


DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE. 


The success of the Democracy essential for the preservation of the Union and the 
protection of the integrity of the Constitution. 


WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED BY R. A. WATERS. 

1856. 









*2 7 - 

/jT 









PREFACE 


TO THE 

DEMOCRATIC ELFCTORAL HAND-BOOK. 


The demand for authentic documents disproving the unprecedented 
charges against the Democratic- candidate, and refuting the unblushing 
pretensions of the Black Republican Know-Nothing nominees for 
the Presidency, has rendered it important in the opinion of leading 
members of the Democratic party, that some compilation of argument 
and fact derived from indisputable authorities should be prepared and 
published. 

In the execution of this work, selections have been made from the 
works of the Democratic leaders—Leaders who represent the uniform 
and united opinions of the Democracy, North and South, whilst the 
motives of those patriotic citizens who have forgotten the prejudices of 
party, to bestow their support upon the only National candidate, are 
illustrated in the speeches and letters of the old line Whigs, vindicating 
their course of action in that respect. 

The Electoral Hand Book, will be found to contain, also, the most 
important enactments and reports bearing upon the great issues of the 
day, with a mass of others matter sufficient to furnish any enquirer with 
the means of making up an impartial opinion upon the questions involved 
in the canvass, and to furnish speakers and writers with the material for 
defence or assault. 

The author can only add, that having access to the whole magazine 
of political missiles, proper for employment in the present campaign, 
and enabled by his position and pursuits, to furnish any specific infor¬ 
mation from the published political records of the country, it will afford 
him pleasure to communicate any answer to any inquiry which may be 
made of him, and which is not satisfactorily responded to in the 
“ Hand-Book.” 

Appealing to the magnanimity of his fellow-democrats to attribute 
any omission, to the hurried manner in which he is necessitated to pre¬ 
pare his work, he submits it for their judgment and use. 













. 











. 
















THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 


The excitement created by the repeal of a geographical line, the existence 
of which Mr. Jefferson said “ would be recurring on every occasion, and re¬ 
newing irritations, until it would enkindle such mutual and moral hatred as 
would render seperation preferable to eternal discord,” has induced us to re¬ 
publish the unfortunate act of Congress which first gave existence to what 
was called the Missouri Compromise line. 

Missouri having applied for admission into the Union as a State, the House 
of Representatives, on the 16th of February, 1819, passed a bill providing for 
her admission, and affixing as a condition thereof, the prohibition of slavery 
within her limits. On the 27th of February, 1819, the Senate struck out of 
the bill the clause prohibiting slavery*, and thus amended, sent it back to the 
House. On the 2d of March, 1819, the House refused to concur in the 
amendment of the Senate. On the same day the Senate insisted upon its 
amendment, and the House adhered, so that bill was lost. 

On the 6th of January, 1820, the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate 
reported a bill from the House admitting Maine into the Union, which con¬ 
tained no prohibition whatever, with an amendment admitting Missouri with¬ 
out any clause concerning slavery. It was then that Mr. Thomas introduced 
as an amendment what is called the Missouri Compromise which was adopted, 
and the bill as amended, passed the Senate on the 18th of February, 1820. 
The bill came to the House. After numerous messages between the two 
Houses, informing each other of their disagreements, and after motions had 
passed both Houses te insist on their respective positions, a joint committee of 
conference was appointed. Whilst this committee was in session, an inde¬ 
pendent bill to admit Missouri wafc taken up in the House and passed, contain¬ 
ing a clause prohibiting slavery in said State, which was sent to the Senate, 
amended by it, and returned. Upon its return, the managers of the conference 
reported, that the Senate recede from its amendment to the bill admitting 
Maine, and that the House bill, admitting Missouri, should be amended by 
striking out the clause prohibiting slavery, and inserting in Jieu thereof, what 
is now known as the Missouri Compromise. The bill thus framed, was, 
after one disagreement on the part of the two Houses, passed, and is as fol¬ 
lows : 

An ACT to authorize the People of the Missouri Territory te form a Constitution and State Government, and 
. for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with ihe original States, and to prohibit 

Slavery in certain Territories. 

Sec. 1 . Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled , That the inhabitants of that portion of the Missouri Ter¬ 
ritory included within 1 the boundaries hereinafter designated, be, and they are hereby 
authorized to form for themselves a Constitution and State Government; and to assume 
such name as they shall deem proper ; and the said State, when formed, shall be ad¬ 
mitted into the Union, upon an equal footing with the original States, in all respects 
whatsoever. 

The 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th sections of the law, embrace mere matters of 
detail, having no connection with the great question which is now agitating 
the country. The 8th section, which is what is generally known as the 
Missouri Compromise, is as follows: 

Sec. 8. And be it further enacted. That in all that territory ceded by France to the 
United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees and 


6 


thirty minutes north latitude, not included within the limits of the State contemplated 
by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of 
crimes, whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby 
forever prohibited,; Provided always , That any person escaping into the same, from 
whom labor or service is lawfully claimed, in any state or territory of the United 
States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming 
his or her labor or service as aforesaid. [Approved 6 March , 1820.] 

The action of Congress after the passage of the foregoing act rejects the idea 
that it was a compact, or that the Missouri Compromise embraced in the 8th 
section thereof was at all a condition to the subsequent admission of Missouri. 
After the enactment of that law, Missouri applied for admission as a state, and 
her application was rejected. Congresss disregarded the act establishing the 
geographical line and shut the door on Missouri. The following act was 
afterwards passed and she was admitted ; 

RESOLUTIONS. 

[No. 1.] RESOLUTION providing for the Admission of the State of Missouri into 
the Union, on a certain Condition. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled , That Missouri shall be admitted into this Union on an equal footing 
with the original States, in all respects whatever, upon the fundamental condition, that 
the fourth clause of the 26th section of the third article of the constitution submitted on 
the part of said state to Congress, shall never be construed to authorize the passage of 
any law, and that no law shall be passed in conformity thereto, by which any citizen, of 
either of the states in this Union, shall be excluded from the enjoyment of any of the 
privileges and immunities to which such citizen is entitled under the constitution 
of the United States: Provided, That the legislature of the said state, by a solemn 
public act, shall declare the assent of the said state to the said fundamental condition, 
and shall transmit to the President of the United States, on or before the fourth Monday 
in November next, an authentic copy of the said act; upon the receipt whereof, the 
President, by proclamation, shall announce the fact; whereupon, and without any further 
proceedings on the part of Congress, the admission of the said state into this Union shall 
be considered as complete. . [ Approved . 2 March, 1821.] 

From this it will be seen that the only condition under which Missouri was 
admitted, is contained in the proviso of the last act, which Missouri in her ac¬ 
ceptance of the terms of admission denied the right of the United States to make 
whilst she nevertheless yielded and became a part of the Union. The effect 
of this condition was to force Missouri to agree to admit within her limits to 
the same privileges which white citizens of other states might have, the negro 
where he is recognised as a citizen by any state. 

Mr. Jefferson’s opinion of the enactment of a geographical line in the country* 
referring to that instuted by the Missouri act of 1820. * 

THOMAS JEFFERSON to WM. SHORT. 

Monticello, April 13, 1820. 

Hear Sir: * * * * Although I had laid down as a law to myself, not to write* 

talk, or even think of politics, to know nothing of public affairs, and therefore bad 
ceased to read newspapers, yet the Missouri question aroused and filled me with alavm. 
Tim old schism of Federal and Republican, threatened nothing, because it extended in 
every State, and united them together by the fraternalization of party. But the coinci¬ 
dence of a marked principle, moral and political, with a geographical line, once con¬ 
ceived, I feared would never more be obliterated from the mind; that it would be re¬ 
curring on every occasion, and renewing irritations, until it would enkindle such mutual 
and moral hatred as would render separation preferable to eternal discord. I have been 
the most sanguine in believing that our Union would be of long duration. I now doubt 
it much, and see the event at no great distance, and the direct consequences of this 
question, not by the line which has been so confidently counted on—the laws of nature 
control this—but by the Potomac, Ohio and Missouri, or more probably the Mississippi, 


upwards to our northern boundary. My only comfort and confidence is that I shall not live 
to see this; and 1 envy not the present generation the glory of throwing away the fruits 
of their father’s sacrifices of life and fortune and of rendering desperate the experiment 
which was to decide ultimately, whether man is capable of self-government. This treason 
against human hope will signalize their epoch in future history as the counterpart of their 
predecessors. 


THOMAS JEFFERSON to JOHN HOLMES. 

Montecello, April 20, 1820. 

I tnank you, dear sir, for the copy you have been so fond as to send me of the letter 
to your constituents, on the Missouri question. It is a perfet justification to them. I 
had for a long time ceased to read newspapers, or pay any attention to public affairs, 
confident they were in good hands, and content to be a passenger in our bark to the 
shore from which I am not far distant. * But this momentuous question, like a fire-bell 
in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the Knell 
of the Union. It is hushed indeed for the moment, but this is a reprieve only, not a 
final sentence. A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, mwral and 
political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be ob¬ 
literated ; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper. An abstinence, too, 
from this act of power, would remove the jealousy excited by the undertaking of Con¬ 
gress to regulate the condition of the different-descriptions of men composing a State. This 
certainly is tne exclusive right of every State, which nothing in the Constitution has taken 
from them and given to the General Government. Could Congress, for instance, say that 
the non-freemen of Connecticut should be freemen, or that they shall not emigrate into any 
other State. 


EXTENSION OF THE MISSOURI LINE TO THE PACIFIC. 

On the 10th of August 1848, in the Senate of the United States, the Oregon 
bill being under consideration, the question was taken on the amendment extend¬ 
ing the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific, and it was decided in the af¬ 
firmative as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Borland, Bright , Butler, Cal¬ 
houn, Cameron , Davis of Miss., Dickinson, Douglas, Downs, Fitzgerald. Foote, Hannegan, 
Houston, Hunter, Johnson of Maryland, Johnson of Louisiana, Johnson of Georgia, 
King, Lewis, Mangum, Mason, Metcalf, Pearce, Sebastian, Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, 
and Underwood—33. 

Nays. —Messrs. Allen, Atherton, Baldwin, Bradbury, Breese, Clarke, Corwin, Davis of 
Mass., Dayton, Dix, Dodge, Fetch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, Niles, Phelps, Uphham, 
Walker, Webster and Wescott—22. 

The Bill with this amendment came before the House on the next day, 
and the amendment of the Senate extending the Missouri line to the Pacific 
was non-concurred in by the following vote : 

Yeas —Messrs Adams, Atkinson, Barringer, Barrow. Bayly, Beale, Bedinger, Birdsall , 
Bocock, Botts, Bowdon, Bowlin, Boyd, Boy don, Bredhead, Chas. Brown, A. G. Brown, 
Buckner, Burt, Cabell, Chapman, Chase, Beverly L. Clarke, Clingman, Howell Cobb, 
Williams®n R. W. Cobb, Cocke, Crozier, Daniel, Donnell, Garnett Duncan, Alexander 
Evans, Featherston, Flournoy. French, Fulton, Gayle, Goggin, Greene, Willard P. Hall, 
Haralson, Harmanson, Hairiss, Haskell, Hill, Hilliard, Isaac E. Holmes, Geo. S. Hous¬ 
ton, Chas. J. Ingersoll, Iverson, Andrew Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, Geo. W. Jones, 
John W. Jones, Kaufman, Thomas Butler King, Ligon, Lumpkin, McDowell, McKay, 
McLane, Meade, Morehead, Outlaw, Pendleton, Phelps, Pillsbury, Preston, Rhett, Ro¬ 
man, Sheppard, Stanton, Stephens, Thomas, Jacob Thompson, J. B. Thompson, Robert 
A. Thompson, Tompkins, Toombs, Venable, Wallace and Woodward—82. 

Nays _ Messrs. Abbott, Ashmun, Bingham, Blanchard, Brady, Butler, Canby, Cathcart , 

F. Clark, Collamer, Collins, Conger, Cranston, Crowell, Cummins, Darling, Dickey, Dick¬ 
inson, Dixon, Duer, Daniel Duncan, Dunn, Eckert, Edsall, Edwards, Ernbree , Nathan 
Evans, Faran, Farelly, Ficklin, Fisher, Freedly, Fries, Gott, Gregory, Grinnell, Hale, 
Nathan K. Hall, Hammons, Jas. G. Hampton, Moses Hampton, Henly, Henry, Elias B. 
Holmes, John W. Houston, Hubbard, Hudson, Hunt, Joseph R. Ingersoll, Irvin, Jenkins, 
Kellogg, Kennen,D. P. King, W. T. Lawrence,Sydney Lawrence, Lincoln, Lord , Lynde, Ma- 



8 


clay, McClelland, McClernand, Mcllvaine, Job Mann, Horace Mann, Marsh , Marvin, Mil- 
er, Morris, Mullen, Murphy, Nelson , iVes, Newell, Nicoll, Palfrey, Peaslee, Peck, Petrie, 
Pettitt, Pollock, Putnam, Reynolds, Richey, Robinson, Rockhill, Jno. A. Rockwell, Rose, 
Root, Rumsey, St. John, Sawyer, Schenck, Sherrill, Sylvester, Slingcrland, Smart, Caleb 
B. Smith, Robert Smith, Truman Smith, Starkweather, Andrew Stewart, Chas. E. Stuart, 
Strohm, Strong, Tallmadge, Taylor, James Thompson, Richard W. Thompson, William 
Thompson, Thurston, Tuck, Turner, Van Dyke, Vinton barren, Wentworth, White, Wick, 
Williams and Wilmot. —121. 

The House having thus ji on-con cur red with the Senate, the question was 
decided in the Senate, on the 12th of August, 1848, in favor of receding from 
its amendment, running the Missouri line to the Pacific, by yeas and nays, as 
follows: 

Yeas. — Messrs. Allen, Baldwin, Benton, Bradbury, Breese, Bright, Cameron, Clarke, 
Corwin, Davis, of Mass., Dayton, Dickinson, Dix, Dodge, Douglass, Felch, Fitzgerald, 
Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Hannegan, Houston, Miller, Miles, Phelps, Spruance, Upham, 
Walker and Webster —29. 

Nays —Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Berrien, Borland, Butler, Calhoun, Davis of 
Miss., Downs, Foote, Hunter, Johnson of Maryland, Johnson of Louisiana, Johnson, 
of Georgia, Lewis, Mangum, Mason, Metcalfe, Pearce, Rusk, Sebastian, Turney, Un¬ 
derwood, Westcott anclYulee—25. 

So the Senate receded, and the Compromise line was not extended. 

By analyzing this vote it will be seen that upon its being first proposed in 
the Senate to extend the Missouri line to the Pacific, the entire North in that 
body with seven exceptions voted against it, whilst the entire South with one 
exception voted for it. 

In the House the entire North with four exceptions voted against it, whilst 
the entire South with one exception voted for it. 

Upon receding in the Senate the entire North voted to recede whilst the en¬ 
tire South with two exceptions voted against it. 

Note —Those in Italics are from the North. Those not in Italics are from the South. 


LEGISLATION OF 1850, SUPERSEDING THE MISSOURI 

COMPROMISE. 

We do not deem it necessary to burden this book with a publication of the 
whole of the Territorial laws of the memorable year 1850. The extracts 
bearing directly on the subject are all that is necessary. 

The Act approved September 9, 1850, for the organization of the Territory 
of New Mexico, being a part of the act fixing the boundaries of Texas, con¬ 
tains the following proviso in its second section. 

“Provided further, That when admitted as a State, the said Territory or 
any portion of the same shall be received into the Union, with or without slav¬ 
ery as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission.” 

The Act appreved the same day for the organization of the Territory of 
Utah, contains an identical provision with that cited from the New Mexico Act. 

A portion of New Mexico lies north of 36.30. The whole of Utah lies 
north of that line. 



9 


THE WHIG AND DEMOCRATIC PLATFORMS OF 1852 EN¬ 
DORSE THE LEGISLATION OF 1850, SUPERSEDING THE 
MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 

We here subjoin the Whig platform of 1852. It will be seen that it fully 
endorsed the legislation of 1850, and afforded the South ample guarantees for 
the protection of its institutions. 

NATIONAL WHIG PLATFORM OF 1852. 

The Whigs of the United States, in convention assembled, firmly adhering to the great 
conservative republican principles by which they are controlled and governed, and now, 
as ever, relying upon the intelligence of the American people, with an abiding confi¬ 
dence in their capacity for self-government, and their continued devotion to the Consti¬ 
tution and the Union, do proclaim the following as the political sentiments and deter¬ 
minations, for the establishment and maintainance of which their national organization 
as a party is effected. 

1. The Government of the United States is of a limited character, and it is confined 
to the exercise of powers expressly granted by the Constitution, and such as may be 
necessary and proper for carrying the granted powers into full execution, and that all 
powers not thus granted or necessarily implied are expressly reserved to the States re¬ 
spectively and to the people. 

The State Governments should beheld secure in their reserved rights, and the Gen¬ 
eral Goverement sustained in its constitutional powers, and the Union should be rever¬ 
ed and watched over as “the palladium of our liberties.” 

3. That while struggling freedom, everywhere, enlists the warmest sympathy of the 
Whig party, we still adhere to the doctrines of the Father of his Country, as announced 
in his Farewell Address, of keeping ourselves free from all entangling alliances with 
foreign countries, and of never quitting our own to stand upon foreign ground. That 
our mission as a Republic is not to propagate our opinions, or impose on other countries 
our form of government, by artifice or force, but to teach by example, and show by our 
success, moderation, and justice, the blessings of self-government, and the advantages 
of free institutions. 

4. That where the people make and control the Government, they should obey its 
Constitution, laws, and treaties, as they wuuld retain their self-respect, and the respect 
which they claim, and will enforce, from foreign powers. 

5. Government should be conducted upon principles of the strictest economy, and 
revenue sufficient for the expenses thereof, in time of peace, ought to be mainly derived 
from a duty on imports, and not from direct taxes ; and in levying such duties, sound 
policy requires a just discrimination and protection from fraud by specific duties, when 
practicable, whereby suitable encouragement may be assured to American industry, 
equally to all classes and to all portions of the country. 

6. The Constitution vests in Congress the power to open and repair harbors, and re¬ 
move obstructions from navigable rivers ; and it is expedient that Congress shall exer¬ 
cise that power whenever such improvements are necessary for the common defence or for the 
prolection and Jacility of commerce with foreign nations or among the States ; such im¬ 
provements being, in every instance, national and general in their character. 

7. The Federal and State Governments are parts of one system, alike necessary for 
the common prosperity, peace, and security, and ought to be regarded alike with a cor¬ 
dial, habitual, and immoveable attachment. Respect for the authority of each, and 
acquiescence in the constitutional measures of each, are duties required by the plainest 
consideration of national, of State, and individual welfare. 

8. The series of acts of the 31st Congress, commonly known as the Compromise or 
Adjustment, (the act for the recovery of fugitives from labor included,) are received and 
acquiesced in by the Whigs of the United States as a final settlement, in principle and 
substance, of the subjects to which they relate, and so far as these acts are concerned, 
we will maintain them, and insist on their strict enforcement, until time and experience 
shall demonstrate the necessity of further legislation to guard against the evasion of 
the laws on the one hand, and the abuse of their powers on the other, not impairing 
their present efficiency to carry out the requirements of the Constitution, and we depre¬ 
cate all further agitation of the question thus settled, as dangerous to our peace, and 
will discountenance all efforts to continue or renew such agitation, whenever, wherever, 

2 


10 


or however made; and we will maintain this settlement as essential to the nationality of 
the Whig party and the ittegrity of the Union. 

The Democratic platform of 1856 embraces the whole of the platform of the 
same party in 1852, with the exception of the two following sections . ^Cf^See 
platform ol 1856 in proceedings of National Convention, contained in this 
volume. 

IX. ‘'Resolved, That the war with Mexico, upon all the principles of patriotism and 
the laws of nations, was a just and necessary war on onr part, in which every American 
citizen should have shown himself on the side of his country, and neither morally nor 
physically, by word or deed, have given ‘aid and comfort to the enemy.’ 

X. “ Resolved , That we rejoice at the restoration of friendly relations with our sister 
republic of Mexioo, and earnestly desire for her all the blessings and prosperity which 
we enjoy under republican instituons l . and we congratulate the American people upon 
the results of that war, which have so manifestly justified the policy and conduct of the 
Democratic'party, and insured to the United States “indemnity for the past and securi¬ 
ty for the future.’ ” 

Upon these platforms the two parties went into that contest—their candidates 
standing uneqvivocally upon their distinctive features. The candidate of no 
other party carried a single State. Every State in the Union endorsed one or 
the other of those platforms. Both platforms endorsed the Legislation of 1850. 
Therefore, every State endorsed the legislation of 1850. 


THE NEBRASKA AND KANSAS ACT OF 1854. 

This act contains the following section, repealing in direct terms the 8th sec¬ 
tion of the Act approved March 6th, 1820, commonly known as the Missouri 
Compromise. 

“Sec. 14. ***** * That the Constitution and all the laws of the Unit¬ 

ed States which are not locally inapplicable shall have the same force and effect within 
the said Territory of Nebraska (or Kansas, the language being the same in reference to 
both,) as elsewhere within the United States, except the 8th section of the act, prepara¬ 
tory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March sixth, eighteen hun¬ 
dred and twenty, which, being inconsistent with the principles of non-intervention by 
Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, as recognised by the legislation of 
eighteen hundred and fifty, commonly called the compromise measures, is hereby de¬ 
clared inoperative and void; it beiug the true intent and meaning of this act not to 
legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave 
the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their 
own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States . Provided , That noth¬ 
ing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation 
which may have existed prior to the act of 6th March, 1820, either protecting, estab¬ 
lishing, prohibiting, or abolishing slavery.” 

This act passed the House by a vote of 113 to 100—44 northern men, all 
Democrats, and 69 southern men voted for it in the House.—91 northern 
men and 9 southern men voted against it. 

The final vote on its passage in the Senate, was 35 to 13. 

In that body, 11 Southern men and 14 Northern men—the latter all Demo¬ 
crats, voted for it.—11 Northern men and 2 Southern men voted against it. 


READ THE PLATFORMS OF THE OPPONENTS OF THE 

DEMOCRACY. 

KNOW-NOTHING PLATFORM OF 1855. 

1. The acknowledgment of that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe_who 

presides over the Councils of Nations—who conducts the affairs of men, and who, in 




every step by which we have advanced to the character of an independent nation, has 
distinguished us by some token of Providential agency. 

2. The cultivation and develooment of a sentiment of profoundly intense American 
feeling; of passionate attachment to our country, its history and its institutions; of 
admiration for the purer days of our National existence; of veneration for the heroism 
that precipitated our Revolution, and of emulation of the virtue, wisdom and patriotism 
that framed our Constitution, and first successfully applied its provisions. 

3. The maintainance of the union of these United States, as the paramount political 
good; or, to use the language of Washington, “the primary object of patriotic desire.” 
And hence— 

First. Opposition to all attempts to weaken or subvert it. 

Second. Uncompromising antagonism to every principle of policy that endangers it. 

Third. The advocacy of an equitable adjustment of all political differences which 
threaten its integrity or perpetuity. 

Fourth. The suppression of all tendencies to political division, founded on “geo¬ 
graphical discriminations, or on the belief that there is a real difference of interests 
and views ” between the various sections of the Union. 

Fifth. The full recognition of the rights of the several States, as expressed and re¬ 
served in the Constitution ; and a careful avoidance, by the General Government, of all 
interference with their rights by legislative or executive action. 

4. Obedience to the Constitution of these United States as the snpreme law of the 
land, sacredly obligatory upon all its parts and members ; and steadfast resistance to 
the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. Avowing 
that in all doubtful or disputed points it may only be legally ascertained and expounded 
by the Judicial power of the United States. 

First. A habit of reverential obedience to the laws, whether National, State, or Mu¬ 
nicipal, until they are repealed or declared unconstitutional by the proper authority. 

Second. A tender and sacred regard for those acts of statesmanship, which are to 
be contra-distinguished from acts of ordinary legislation, by the fact of their being of 
the nature of compacts and agreements ; and so, to be considered a fixed and settled 
national policy. 

5. A radical revision and modification of the laws regulating immigration, and the 
settlement of immigrants—offering the honest immigrant, who, from love of liberty or 
hatred of oppression, seeks an asylum in ths United States, a friendly reception and 
protection, but unqualifiedly condemning the transmission to our shores of felons and 
paupers. 

6. The essential modification of the Naturalization Laws. 

The repeal by the Legislatures of the respective States, of all State laws allowing for¬ 
eigners not naturalized to vote. The repeal, without retrospective operation, of all acts 
of Congress making grants of land to unnaturalized foreigners, and allowing them to 
vote in the Territories. 

7. Hostility to the corrupt means by which the leaders of party have hitherto forced 
upon us our rulers and our political creeds. 

Implacable enmity against the present demoralizing system of rewards for political 
subserviency, and of punishments for political independence. 

Disgust for the wild hunt after office which characterizes the age. 

These on the one hand. On the other— 

Imitation of the practice of the purer days of the Republic; and admiration of the 
maxim that “ office should seek the man, and not man the office,” and of the rule that 
the just mode of ascertaining fitness for office is the capability, the faithfulness, and 
the honesty of the incumbent candidate. 

8. Resistance to the aggressive policy and corrupting tendencies of the Roman Cath¬ 
olic Chnrch in our country by the advancement to all political stations—executive, leg¬ 
islative, judicial, or diplomatic—of those only who do not hold civil allegiance, directly 
or indirectly, to any foreign power, whether civil or ecclesiastical, and who are Ameri¬ 
cans by birth, education, and training — thus fulfilling the maxim, “Americans only 
SHALL GOVERN AMERICA.” 

• The protection of all citizens in the legal and proper exercise of their civil and reli¬ 
gions rights and privileges; the maintainance of the right of every man to the full, un¬ 
restrained, and peaceful enjoyment of his own religious opinions and worship, and a 
jealous resistance of all attempts by any sect, denomination, or church, to obtain an 
ascendency over any other in the State, by means of any special privilege or exemption, 
by any political combination of its members, or by a division of their civil allegiance 
with any foreign power, potentate, or ecclesiastic. 

9. The reformation of the character ef our National Legislature, by elevating to that 


dignified and responsible position men of higher qualifications, purer morals, and more 
unselfish patriotism. 

10. The restriction of executive patronage—especially in the matter of appointments 
to office—so far as it may be permitted by the Constitution, and consistent with the 
public good. 

11. The education of the youth of our country in schools provided by the State; 
which schools shall be common to all, withont distinction of creed or party, and free 
from any influence or direction of a denominational or partisan character. 

And, inasmuch as Christianity, by the Constitutions of nearly all the States : by the 
decisions of the most eminent judicial authorities, and by the consent of the people of 
America, is considered an element of our political system, and as the Holy Bible is at 
once the source of Christianity, and the depository and fountain of all civil and re¬ 
ligious freedom, we oppose every attempt to exclude it from the schools thus established 
in the States. 

12. The American party, having arisen upon the ruins, and in spite of the opposition 
of the Whig and Democratic parties, cannot be held in any manner responsible for the 
obnoxious acts or violated pledges of either. And the systematic agitation of the Sla¬ 
very question by those parties having elevated sectional hostility into a positive element 
of political power, and brought our institutions into peril, it has, therefore, become the 
imperative duty of the American party to interpose, for the purpose of giving peace to 
the country and perpetuity to the Union. And as experience has shown it impossible 
to reconcile opinions so extreme as those which separate the disputants, and as there 
can be no dishonor in submitting to the laws, the National Council has deemed it the 
best guarantee of common justice and of future peace, to abide by and maintain the 
existing laws upon the subject of Slavery, as a final and conclusive settlement of that 
subject, in fact and in substance. 

And regarding it the highest duty to avow their opinions upon a subject so important in 
distinct and unequivocal terms, it is hereby declared as the sense of this National Coun¬ 
cil, that Congress possesses no power, under the Constitution, to legislate upon the 
subject of Slavery in the States, where it does or may exist, or to exclude any State 
from admission into the Union because its Constitution does or does not recognize the 
institution of Slavery as a part of its social system : and expressly pretermitting aEy 
expression of opinion upon the power of Congress to establish or prohibit Slavery in 
any Territory, it is the sense of the National Council that Congress ought not to legis¬ 
late upon the subject of Slavery within the Territory of the United States and that 
any interference by Congress with Slavery as it exists in the District of Columbia, 
would be a violation of the spirit and intention of the compact by which the State of 
Maryland ceded the District to the United States, and a breach of the National faith. 

13. The policy of the Government of the United States, in its relations with foreign 
governments, is to exact justice from the strongest, and do justice to the weakest; res¬ 
training, by all the power of the government, all its citizens from interference with the 
internal concerns of nations with whom we are at peace. 

14. This National Council declares that all the principles of the Order shall behence- 
forth everywhere openly avowed; and that each member shall be at liberty to make 
known the existence of the Order, and the fact that he himself is a member ; and it re¬ 
commends that there be no concealment of the places of meeting of subordinate coun¬ 
cils. 

E. B. BARTLETT, of Kentucky, President of National Council. 

C. D. Deshxer, of New Jersey, Corresponding Secretary. 

James M. Stephens, of Maryland, Recording Secretary. 


PLATFORM OF THE AMERICAN PARTY, ADOPTED AT THE SESSION OF TTTF 
NATIONAL COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 21st, 1856, 

1st. An humble acknowledgment to the Supreme Being, for His protecting care vouch, 
safed to our fathers in their successful Revolutionary struggle, and hitherto manifested 
to us, their decendants in the preservation of the liberties, the independence and the 
union of these States. 

2d. The perpetuation of the Federal Union, as the palladium of our civil and religious 
liberties, and the only sure bulwark of American Independence. 

3d. Americans must rule America ,^nd to this end, wa^e-born citizens should be selec¬ 
ted for all State, Federal, and municipal offices, or government employment, in prefer* 
ence to all others: nevertheless. 



13 


4th. Persons born of American parents residing temporarily abroad, should be enti¬ 
tled to all the rights of native-born citizens ; but 

5th. No person should be selected for political station, (whether of native or foreign 
birth,) who recognises any allegiance or obligation of any description to any foreign 
prince, potentate or power, or who refuses to recognise the Federal and- State constitu¬ 
tions (each within its sphere) as paramount to all other laws as issues of political ac¬ 
tion. 

6th. The unqualified recognition and maintenance of the reserved rights of the sever¬ 
al States, and the cultivation of harmony and fraternal good will, between the citizens 
• of the several States, and to this end, non-interference by Congress with questions ap¬ 
pertaining solely to the individual States, and non-intervention by each State with the 
affairs of any other State. 

7th. The recognition of the right of the native-born and naturalized citizenss of the 
United States, permanently residing in any Territory thereof, to frame their constitu¬ 
tion and laws, and to regulate their domestic and social affairs in their own mode, sub¬ 
ject only to the provisions of the Federal Constitution, with the privilege of admission 
into the Union whenever they have the requisite population for one Representative in 
Congress. Provided always, that Done but those who are citizens of the United States, 
under the constitution and laws thereof, and who have a fixed residence in any such 
Territory, ought to participate in the formation of the constitution, or in the enactment 
of laws for said Territory or States. 

8th. An enforcement of the principle that no State or Territory ought to admit others 
than citizens of the United States to the right of suffrage, or of holding political office. 

9th. A change in the laws of naturalization, making a continued residence of twenty- 
one years, of all not hereinbefore provided for, and indispensable requisite for citizen¬ 
ship hereafter, and excluding all paupers, and persons convicted of crime, from landing 
upon our shores; but no interference with the vested rights of foreigners. 

10th. Opposition to any union between Church and State ; no interference with reli¬ 
gious faith, or worship, and and no test oaths for office. 

] 1th. Free and thorough investigation into any and all alleged abuses of public func¬ 
tionaries, and a strict economy in public expenditures. 

12. The maintenance and enforcement of all laws constitutionally enacted, until said 
laws shall be repealed, or shall be declared null and void by competent judicial autho¬ 
rity- 

13. Opposition to the^reckless and unwise policy of the present administration in the 
general management of our national affairs, and more especially as shown in removing 
“Americans” by designation and conservatives in principie, from office, and placing 
foreigners and ultraists in their places; as shown in a truckling subserviency to the 
stronger, and an insolent and cowardly bravado towards the weaker powers ; as shown 
in re-opening sectional agitation, by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise ; as shown 
in granting to unnaturalized foreigners the right of suffrage in Kansas and Nebraska ; 
as shown in its vacillating course on the Kansas and Nebraska question ; as shown in 
the corruptions which pervade some of the departments of the government; as shown 
in disgracing meritorious naval officers through prejudice or caprice ; and as shown in 
the blundering mismanagement of our foreign relations. 

14th. Therefore to remedy existing evils, and prevent the disastrous consequences 
otherwise-resulting therefrom, we would build up the “American party” upon the prin¬ 
ciples hereinbefore stated. 

15th That each State Council shall have authority to amend their several constitutions, 
so as to abolish the several degrees, and institute a pledge of honor, instead of other 
obligations for fellowship and admission into the party. 

16th. A free and open discussion of all political principles embraced in our platform. 


REPUBLICAN PLATFORM. 

[Adopted March 12, 1856.) 

Resolved, That we regard the Republican movement and organization as having been 
forced upon the country by the unconstitutional and despotic measures and aggressions 
of the national administration, and the want of any other party occupying a position 
suitable for combining public sentiment, and rendering it effective for resisting such ag¬ 
gressions, for defending the rights of the people, and vindicating the principles of 
freedom. 

Resolved, That the recent convention at Pittsburg, which first inaugurated the Repub¬ 
lican movement as a national organization, was demanded by the circumstances of the 



14 


country; that its proceedings were patriotic and judicious, and meet our hearty approval, 
believing that they have already exerted a powerful influence in inspiring confidence and 
awakoning exertions in the cause which the convention so ably represented. 

Resolved, That this convention, representing a portion of the people of the State, and 
believing that a majority of our citizens approve our principles and sympathise in our 
objects, deem the present an auspicious occasion to inaugurate the Republican party in 
this State, with anticipations that it will form a. new political era, productive of results 
highly beneficial to the interests and honor of the State, and in its relations to the Union, 
conducive to the peace, the welfare, and freedom of the country. 

Resolved, That we regard it a leading object of the Republican movement to vindicate 
and defend the Constitution against the perversions, interpolations, excisions, and as¬ 
saults of a sectional monoply interest; to restore the government to its original opinions, 
and to insure its administration, not in the interests of slavery, but in the interests of 
freedom, and in the same spirit in which it was founded, and its powers exercised by the 
fathers of the republic. 

Resolved, That the aggressive acts originating in sectional monoply interests which 
have agitated and alarmed the country, having been consummated in disregard of the 
plainest provisions of the Constitution, admonish us of the necessity and wisdom of pn 
adherence to those republican doctrines that prevailed in the early days of the republic, 
which regarded our political system, not as a national or centralized government, but as 
a compact between sovereign States, each containing all its sovereignty except so far as 
it had voluntarily surrendered a part of its powers to the confederacy, and which re¬ 
garded the federal system as having originated from the States, and as possessing only 
special and limited powers which had been granted to it by the States, and that this 
grant was the extent and measure of its authority, which cannot be enlarged by con¬ 
struction or implication, or by the exercise of assumed or doubtful powers, without an 
invasion of the reserved rights and sovereignty of the States. And in accordance with 
these sound doctrines, there being no grant of power to the federal government in re¬ 
spect to slavery, it cannot uphold or defend it in the Territories, or anywhere else under 
the flag and authority of the Union, without the exercise of unconstitutional powers. 

Resolved, That recent events and disclosures respecting the passage of the Kansas- 
Nebraska act, and the subsequent action of the administration on the subject, have 
stamped upon that measure a darker shade of corruption, fraud, injustice, despotism, 
and violation of public faith unparalleled in the records of modern legislation. 

Resolved, That the conduct of the administration in relation to Kansas, both in what 
it has done and in what it has neglected to do, affords conclusive evidence that it has 
been its settled purpose to make Kansas a slave State, regardless of the wishas of the 
people, and in violation of the principles of “ popular sovereignty,” the establishment 
of which was alleged to be the object of the Kansas and Nebraska act. 

Resolved , That as the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over the Territo¬ 
ries, it is the duty of the President to enforce the laws of Congress, and to protect the 
people of Kansas; and in the refusal of the President to do so, and in removing Gov. 
Reeder, who was upholding the authority of the law, the administration is justly respon¬ 
sible for the disorders, lawless acts, and crimes which have been perpetrated there, and 
all the calamities inflicted on the unoffending people of the Territory. 

Resolved, That the recent proclamation of the President, and the instructions of the 
Secretary of War to the officer in command in Kansas, have placed the administration in 
the position of co-operating with the border ruffians to subjugate the people of Kansas, 
and to compel them, by military force, to submit to the usurpation and despotic laws 
which the Missourians have established over them. This illustrates his doctrine of popu¬ 
lar sovereignty. 

Resolved, That in view of the present distracted and alarming condition of the country, 
we see no safety, no way of deliverance, except in the success of the Republican move¬ 
ment ; and that we earnestly appeal to the people to complete their organizations in 
every town in the States, and to sustain the Republican cause with an earnestness and 
zeal commensurate with its importance, and with the momentous issues depending 
upon it. 

Resolved ’ That we sympathise with the people of Kansas, exposed to the outrages of 
the border ruffians, on the one hand, and the unjust acts of the administration on the 
other; and should the President attempt to execute his threats of compelling, by mili¬ 
tary force, their submission to usurpation and despotism for the evident purpose of 
forcing slavery upon them against their will, and against thejprinciple of the'organic law 
of the Territory, we trust that the friends of justice and freedom in the West and North 
will not quietly •witness such wrong to the free people of the Territory, and to their own 
interests, but will promptly afford them such succor as circumstances may demand, let 
the consequences be what they may. 


15 


THE OBJECTS OF THE ANTI-WAR DISUNIONISTS IN 1812, 
IDENTICAL WITH THOSE OF THE BLACK REPULBLICAN 
LEADERS NOW. 

More than forty years ago the patriotic Mathew Carey, of Philadelphia, 
startled the American people by publishing and proving in his invaluable 
book “ The Olive Branch,” “ That there existed a conspiracy in New Eng¬ 
land to effect a dissolution of the Union at every hazard, and to form a separate 
Confederacy.” 

The object of that warning was to abjure the American people to forget their 
party names of Democrat and Federalist which separated them, and come up 
to save the country from a secret and malevolent enemy. 

His proof consisted in the demonstration that this conspiracy was governed 
but by one principle, and that was the creation of a sectional hostility by which 
they could overthrow this Union. Read his description of the Anti-YVar and 
Disunion party of that day.” 

“ They are possessed of inordinate wealth—of considerable talents—great energy and 
overgrown influence. A Northern Confederacy has been their grand object for a number 
of years. They have repeatedly advocated in the public prints a separation of the 
States.” 

*********** 

“ To sow discord, jealousy and hostility between the different sections of the Union, 
was the first and grand step in their eareer, in order to accomplish their favorite object 
of a separation of the States.” 

“ In fact, without this efficient instrument, all their efforts would have, been utterly 
unavailing. It would have been impossible had the honest yeomanry of the Eastern 
States continued to regard their Southern fellow citizens as friends and brethren, 
having one common interest in the promotion of the general welfare to make them 
instruments in the hands of those who intended to employ them to operate the unholy 
work of destroying the noble, the august, the splendid fabric of our Union.” 

“ For eighteen years therefore the most unceasing endeavors have been made to 
poison the minds of the people of the Eastern States towards and to alienate them from 
their fellow citizens of the Southern. The people of the later section have been por¬ 
trayed as demons incarnate, and destitute of all the good qualities that dignify or adorn 
human nature.” 

One of their writers says : 

“ The Northern States can subsist as a Nation or Republic without any connection 
with the Southern. * ' * * I shall endeavor to prove the impossibility of 

a Union for any long period in future, both from the moral and political habits of the 
citizens of the Southern States.” 

“ It thus happens, that a people proverbially orderly, quiet, sober, and rational, were 
actually so highly excited as to be ripe for rovolution, and ready to overturn the whole 
system of social order. A conspiracy was formed, which, as I have stated, and as 
cannot be too often repeated, promised fair to produce a convulsion —a dissolution of 
the Union—and a civil war.” 

In order to embarrass the government of Mr. Madison these disunionists op¬ 
posed the war of 1812. Belonging chiefly to the commercial interests, they 
opposed a war made to protect those interests. They sympathized with the 
slave in bondage, and were as ready at that day as this to sever the Union rather 
than sit in council with the masters, whilst at the same time they traitorously 
opposed a war as the means of releasing their own sea-faring fellow citizens 
from worse than servile bondage, their being “ eight hundred and seventy-three 
persons sailing under the American flag which ought to have insured their 
protection, imprisoned with every circumstance ofoutrage, oppression, injury 
injustice. 

The patriotic Carey goes on to depict the slavery to which the American 


1G 


seamen were reduced, from which the disunionists opposed the means of their 
release. 

“ We were ordered off the quarter deck, and the captain called for the master at 
arms, and ordered us to be put in irons. We were then kept in ^ons about twenty-tour 
hours, when we wer taken out. brought to the gangway, STRIPPED OF OUK 
CLOTHES, TIED AND WHIPPED, EACH ONE DOZEN AND A HALF LASHES, 

AND PUT TO DUTY.”_ Deposition of Richard Thompson, of New York , page -11, Utive 

Branch. 

He goes on to recite innumerable affidavits of the same character. 

One^Hiram Thayer, a native of Greenwich, Mass., was told by Captain 
Stack pole a British officer, that “ if they fell in with an American man of war, he 
did not do his duty, Id 3 He should be tied to the mast and shot like 


. J i (X* 

But they wanted to dissolve the Union, and they resisted the enorts of a 
Southern President to set their own felloiv citizens free from bondage. 

They did not hate slavery. They hated the Union. It is the same case 
now. 


HOW THEY OPPOSED THE WAR. 

Some of the clergy at that day, as at this, denounced the government for 
passing an act (The Declaration of War,) of which they did not approve. Let 
us compare them with their successors. 

The Rev. Mr. Gardiner, Rector of Trinity Church, Boston, on the 23d July 
1812, said: 

“ The alternative then is, that if you do not wish to become the slaves of those who 
own slaves, and who are themselves the slaves of French slaves, you must either in the 
language of the day, Jggr CUT THE CONNEXION, or so far altar the national compact, 
as to insure yourselves a due share in the government.” 

“ THE UNION HAS BEEN LONG SINCE VIRTUALLY DISSOLVED ; AND IT IS 
FULL TIME THAT THIS PART OF THE DISUNITED STATES SHOULD TAKE 
CARE OF ITSELF.” Idem, page 19. 

Rev. David Osgood pastor of the Church at Medford, said : 

“ If at the command of weak or wicked rulers, they undertake an unjust war, each man 
who volunteers his services in such a cause, or loans his money for ite support, or by his 
conversation, his writings, or any other mode of influence, encourage its prosecution 
that man is an accomplice in the wickedness, loads his conscience with the blackest 
crimes, brings the guilt of blood upon his soul, and IN THE SIGHT OF 

GOD AND HIS LAW IS A MURDERER.” Discourse delivered June 27,1812, page 9. 

Rev. Elijah Parish, D. D., said : 

“ Here we must trample on the mandates of despotism ! ! ! or here we must remain slaves 
forever.” Idem, page 13. 

“You may envy the privilege of Israel, and mourn that no land of Canaan has been 
promised to your ancestors. You cannot separate from that mass of corruption, which 
would poison the atmosphere of paradise. You must in obstinate despair bow down 
your necks to the yoke, and with your African brethren drag the chains of Virginia 
despotism, unless you discover some other mode of escape.” Idem, page 15. 

“ The legislators who yielded to this when assailed by the manifesto of their angry 
chief, established iniquity and murder by law.” Idem, page 9. 

Compare the Disunion preached of that day with the Disunion preached at 
the present day. Look at the treasonable sentiments of the Beecher of 1855. con¬ 
tained in the pamphlet entitled Fearful Issue, &c.,” in this volume, and com¬ 
pare them with those of the Gardiners, Osgoods and Parishes of Mr. Madison’s 
time. They assailed him and the Union then, as they assail the Kansas Act 
and the Union now. 

But it happens that we can from the public records identify at least one indi* 
vidual who was the active advocate of dissolution then, and has avowed the 


IT 


same sentiments now. He was then indifferent to the far worse than plantation 
bondage in which we have shown his own fellow-citizens were held by the 
British then , yet he affects to make his horror of slavery now } his excuse for 
avowing the same doctrines: 

Mi. Quincey repeated and justified a remark he had made : which, to save all mis” 
apprehensions, he committed to writing in /he following words: 

‘‘ If this bil1 passes, it is my deliberate opinion, that it is virtually A DISSOLUTION 
OF THE UNION ; that it will free the States from their moral obligation; and as it 
will be the right of all , so it will be the duty of some, TO PREPARE FOR A SEPARA¬ 
TION, amicably if they can —VIOLENTLY IF THEY MUST.” 

NOW HEAR THE SAME JOSIAH QUINCEY! 

Josiah Quincey is the venerable head of a large class of men in Boston, who 
are constantly at work against the Union. During the late war with England 
he began his crusade against the Union, and surpassed its worst adverseries. 
He assailed Mr. Jefferson for his purchase of Louisiana, in 1803, because this 
was intended, in his opinion, to extend the area of Slavery. Though past 
eighty-five, he is still the enemy of the Democracy. He is now in the field 
for Fremont. What his views now are, may be seen from the following ex¬ 
tract from his speech, at Boston, on the l8thof August, 1854. 

“ The Nebraska fraud is not that burden on which I intend now to speak. There is 
one nearer home, more immediately present and more insupportable. Of what that 
burden is, Ishall speak plainly. The obligation iucumbent upon the free States to de. 
liver up fugitive slaves is that burden— and it must be obliterated from that Constitution , at 
every hazard .” 

“And such an obliteration can be demonstrated to be as much the interest of the 
South as it is of the North.” 

This man knows that we should have no Union or Constitution, but for this 
very provision ! 

Josiah Quincy is still in the land of the living; and though approaching his 
ninetieth year, is still as hostile to the Union as he was fifty-three years ago, 
while Jefferson was President, or at a later period, when Jackson was chief 
magistrate.— Fearful Issue. 

For the sentiments in detail of the noted Black Republican disunionists of 
the present day, which afford the striking resemblance between them and 
those in Mr. Madison’s time, we must refer our readers to the admirable doc¬ 
ument in this volume before referred to, from which the preceding pointed ob¬ 
servations upon Mr. Quincey are taken. 


PLANS OF THE DISUNIONISTS THEN—PLANS OF THE 
BLACK REPUBLICANS NOW. 

They attempted to “ slop the wheels of Government ” by preventing the loan 
of money to carry ojn the war. 

“ Let no man who wishes to continue the war by active means, by vote or lending 
money, dare to prostrate himself at the altar on the fast day ; for they are ac¬ 
tually as much partakers in the war, as the soldier who thrusts the bayonet; and THE 
JUDGMENT OF GOD WILL AWAIT THEM.” 

“ By the magnanimous course pointed out by governor Strong, that is, by withhold¬ 
ing all voluntary aid in prosecuting the war, and manfully expressing our opinion as to 
its injustice and ruinous tendency, we have arrested its progress ; and driven back its 
authors to abandon their nefarious schemes, and to look anxiously for peace. What 
then if we now lend them money ? They will not make peace; they will still hanker for 
Canada; they will still assemble forces, and shed blood on our western frontier. Mere 
pride, if nothing else, would make them do it. The motives which first brought on the 
war, will still continue it, if money can be had. But some say—will you let the country 



18 


become bankrupt ? no, the country will never become bankrupt. But tray do not 

PREVENT THE ABUSERS OF THEIR TRUST BECOMING BANKRUPT.” 

“ It is very grateful to find that the universal sentiment is, that ANY MAN 

WHO LENDS HIS MONEY TO THE GOVERNMENT, AT THE PRESENT TIME, 
WILL FORFEIT ALL CLAM TO COMMON HONESTY AND COMMON COURTESY 
AMONG ALL TRUE FRIENDS TO THE COUNTRY! !!!!!” 

“ My brother farmers, if you have money to let, let it lay. If the war 

continues, you will purchase your stock at four years old, cheaper than you can raise it; 
so unjust is this offensive war, in which our rulers have plunged us, in the sober con¬ 
sideration of millions, that they cannot conscientiously approach the God of armies 
for his blessing upon it.”—[Boston- Centinel, 13th January, 1813. 

The Disunionists attempted to exhaust the means of the Middle and South¬ 
ern States which supported the war , by draining their banks of specie. 

“ It may not be uninstructive to the reader to explain this process a little more 
in detail. New York purchased goods largely in Boston, partly for bank 
notes and partly on credit. For the latter portion promissory notes were given, 
which were transmitted from Boston to the New York banks for collection. 
Very large purchases were likewise made in Boston by citizens of Philadel¬ 
phia, Baltimore, Richmond, Petersburg, &c. Payments were made in bank 
notes, of the middle and southern States, and in promissory notes. Both were 
sent on to New York, the first for transmission to the banks whence they were 
issued—and the second for collection. 

“ This state of things suggested the stupendous idea, at which the reader 
will stand aghast, of wielding the financial advantages then enjoyed by Boston, 
to produce the effect which the press and the pulpit had failed to accomplish— 
that is, to stop the wheels of government by draining the banks in the middle 
and southern States of their specie , and thus producing an utter disability to 
fill the loans !!! This scheme was projected in the winter of 1813-14—and 
immediate arrangements were made to carry it into execution.” 

“A fearful alarm spread through the community. The issue was looked 
for with terror. Wagons were loading with specie at the doors of our banks 
almost every week. There have been three at one time loading in Philadel¬ 
phia. The banks throughout the middle and southern States vcere obliged to 
curtail their discounts. Bankruptcies took place to a considerable extent.” 

The result was that the Banks in Massachusetts soon had $4,945,444 specie 
in their vaults to $2,000,601 circulation. 

“ To render the stroke at public credit more unerring—and to place the 
result wholly out of the reach of contingency, there was an arrangement made 
by some persons at present unknown, with agents of the Lower Canada, where¬ 
by an immense amount of British government bills, drawn in Quebec, were 
transmitted for sale to New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and disposed 
of to monied men, on such advantageous terms as induced them to make large 
purchases. And thus was absorbed a very large portion of the capital of these 
three cities.” 

By such means they were determined then to repeal the declaration of war 
as their successors are now to repeal the Legislation of Kansas. 

The further effect in the Middle and Southern States is shown by Mr. Carey. 

‘‘These drafts were carried to such a great extent, that on the 26th of Au¬ 
gust the banks in Baltimore—on the 29th those in Philadelphia—and on the 
31st those in New York, were reduced to the painful neeessity of suspending 
the payment of specie.” 



10 


THE DISUNIONISTS DICTATED THE HIGHER LAW AS THE 
MEANS OF DEFEATING THE GOVERNMENT. 

“Administration hirelings may revile the Northern states, and the merchants 
generally, for this monstrous depravation of morals , $§3°* this execrable course of 

smuggling and fraud But there is a just God who knows how to trace the causes of 
human events : and Jg@?“ he will assuredly visil upon the authors of this war , all the 
iniquties of which it has been the occasion. If the guilty deserve our scorn or our pity , 

the tempters and seducers deserve our execration .” 

Thus we have the Higher Law recommended by the Disunionists as justifying 
resistance to an “odious and unjust war,” as it has been since in resisting what 
is called by them, an “ unjust and odious” Fugitive Slave Law. 

Can there be any further doubt that the objects and plans of these two parties 
are the same ? 

We have only to recapitulate, to bring to the eyes and mind of the reader 
the identity of the two. 

Both resorted to Anti-Slavery agitation, to divide the two sections. 

The Disunionists of 1812 said that the South governed the North by its slave 
representation. 

The Disunionists of 1856 say that the South commits an act of aggression 
upon the North, by leaving to the people of Kansas to choose whether they 
will own slaves or not. 

Both employed a minority to effect their purposes. 

The Disunionists of 1812, having no department of the Government, em¬ 
ployed the wealth and corporate combination of an outside minority. 

The Disunionists of 1856 employ the Legislative majority of two or three 
in one branch of the National Congress to compel the passage of an act which 
they want, and which the other Branch and Executive Departments of the 
Government do not want, as a condition to their consent to the passage of an 
act alike indispensable to the interests of all. 

Both attempted to embarrass the Government into compliance with their * 
purposes, by stopping the supplies necessary to national defence. The Dis- 
unonists of 1812, by defeating the War loan. The Disunionists of 1856, by 
withholding the pay of the officers, soldiers and artificers, and thus disbanding 
the army. 

The object of the one was the repeal of the act declaring war against Great 
Britain, 

The object of the other was the repeal of the act authorizing the admis¬ 
sion of Kansas with a free or slave constitution. 

Are not their purposes identical, and should you not fellow citizens sacrifice 
your party differences now, as your fathers did then, to the peace of the country 
and the duration of the Union ? 


HYPOCRISY OF ABOLITION ORATORS. 

House of Representatives, 

August 11, 1856. 

* Sir -—In compliance with your request, I forward to you a copy of the bill of sale 
from Dr. Joseph E. Snodgrass, the travelling Abolition orator, conveying to Daniel 
Burkhart two slaves. I cannot comply with your farther request to have it certified 
under the seal of the Clerk of the County Court. It has never been recorded as it is 
not usual in Virginia to record such instruments, nor does the law require it where the 
sale of a slave, or other personal cheatel is accompanied by the transfer of possession 
rom grantor to grantee, as was the case in the transfer of tho slaves by Dr. Snodgrass 



20 


to Mr. Burkhart. The copy I send to you is in the handwriting of Mr. Burkhart, with 
which I am well acquainted, and who in person handed it to me. Mr. Burkhart is a 
gentleman of great intelligence and worth. He was for many years a magistrate of the 
county of Berkley, and is at this time the cashier of the Bank of Berkeley, Virginia. 
Dr. Snodgrass will n@t dare to deny the genuineness of this paper, nor will he dare to 
deny that he first made sale of all the slaves which he inherited from his father, and put 
the price of flesh and blood into his pocket, before he assumed the vocation of teaching his 
fellow men what an atrocious crime it is to hold a human being in bondage. Such hypo¬ 
crites and impostors should be scouted from every stand from which they attempt to 
address the people. 


Know all men by these presents, That I, Joseph E. Snodgrass, of the city of Baltimore, 
in the State of Maryland, for and in consideration of the sum of eight hundred dollars 
to me in hand, paid by Daniel Buckhart. the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, 
have bargained and sold, and by these presents do bargain and sell into the said D. 
Buckhart, a negro man, named Charles, of about the age thirty six years; also, a 
negro woman, wife of the said Charles, named Emily, aged abont nineteen years, 
together with the natural increase of the said Emily. And I, the said Joseph E. 
Snodgrass, for myself and my heirs, executors, and administraters, do hereby warrant 
the said negroes and their increase to be slaves for life. In testimony whereof, I 
have hereunto set my hand and seal this 1st day of December, 1838. 

(A copy,) JOSEPH E. SNODGRASS. [seal.] 


A STUPENDOUS IMPOSTURE EXPOSED. 

The Black Republicans are circulating for the purpose of poisoning the 
minds of our Irish fellow-citizens thousands of a fraudulent pamphlet purporting 
to bean address from their countrymen in Washington, imposing the acquittal 
of Mr. Herbert for killing Thomas Keating upon the Democratic party of the 
country. The following card from the alleged signers of the address "exposes 
the fraud. 

A CARD. 

Washington Citt, August 28, 1856. 

Finding our names appended to a printed document, published in this city for the benefit 
of the Republican party in the pre ent political canvass, headed “ The Kiilling of Thomas 
Keating.— An Address from Irishmen of Washington City to the Citizens of the 
United States,” we desire to make known the fact that some of us have not signed it, 
and that all of us disapprove, disavow, and deny its political statements. Those of us 
who did sign it were induced so to do by misrepresentation of its purport and contents 
on the part of an individual who, in asking our signatures to it, assured us that it was 
only to be a history of the killing of Thomas Keating, and of the circumstances of the 
imprisonment, trials and final acquittal of Philemon T. Herbert, the perpetrator of that 
act, designed as a precursor of the publication of the speech of Mr. Preston delivered 
on the last trial of Herbert, printed in advance of the publication of that speech so that 
the distant public might have a reliable key to his argument. 
#*****#*## 
We pronounce false the statement of the aforesaid document intimating that the Secre¬ 
tary of State—Mr. Marcy—sought to screen the accused, by lending his influence to 
prevent Mr. Dubois, the Netherlands Minister from testifying in the case ; that gentle¬ 
man’s Govornment having expressly forbid him from testifying under circumstances 
■wherein he would be compelled to submit himself to the usual cross-examination, the 
only system of giving testimony known to our laws, and Mr. Dubios having asked’per¬ 
mission of his Government to testify in that way at the suggestion and solicitation of 
Secretary Marcy. 

********** 
We are humble men, but we respect ourselves and our rights which have been out¬ 
raged by those unknown to us, who have undertaken for political effect to use our 




21 


names as we have explained above. We have to ask those conducting journals of all 
parties who respect the truth, to spread before their readers this brief card. 


Patrick M. KeatiDg, 
Rd. B. Gardiner, 
Daniel Shea, 

Peter Mansville, 
John Enright, 

Wm. Roach, 
Edmund Roach, 
Patrick Branagan, 
Wm. Scherager. 


Charles Quinn, 
James Quinn, 
Jere H. Riordan, 
John Green, 

John Roach, 
John Keating. 
Edward Gorman, 
David Roach, 


FREMONT THE DUELLIST. 

The Black Republicans have been poisoning the northern mind with the idea 
that the Southern men are all bullies and fighting men, disposed rather to re¬ 
sort to the persuasion of the bludgeon than to the arguments of reason. 

The case of the Hon. Preston S. Brooks, and other incidents resulting from 
an extraordinary existence of excitement, have been cited to sustain this asser¬ 
tion. We do not blame Co!. Fremont for what he has done in that line, but 
we publish the following as antidotes to the poison which has been infected into 
the public mind by his friends. 

These incidents show him to be the cool calculating, revenge-seeking 
duellist. 

His first challenge was sent to Col. Mason, in 1847. It was as follows: 

“Cuidad de los Angeles, April 14, 1847. 

“ Sir: —An apology having been declined, Major Reading will arrange the prelimina¬ 
ries for a meeting requiring personal satisfaction. 

Very respectfully, your obodient servant, 

“ J. C. FREMONT, 

“ Lieut. Col. Mounted Riflemen. 

“ Col. R. B. Mason, 

“ First dragoons, Cuidad de los Angeles.’’ 

Col. Mason requested time to go to Monterey to arrange his private afiairs 
previous to their meeting. Col. Fremont thus replied: 

“ Cuidad de los Angeles, April 15, 1847. 

“ g m .—j am in receipt of your letter of this date, and in reply have the honor to 
state that I will hold myself in readiness for a meeting at Monterey, at such time as you 
may designate. 

“I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

“J. C. FREMONT, 

“ Lieut. Col. Mounted Riflemen. 

« Col. R. B. Mason, 

“ First Dragoons, Cuidad de los Angeles.” 

Col. Fremont repaired to Monterey, and presented himself at Col. Mason’s 
headquarters, to let Mason see he was in Monterey, but would not sit down. 
Gen. Kearney and Com. Biddle, hearing of the proposed meeting, wrote the 
parties, forbidding the meeting. 

Col. Fremont thus replied to Col. Mason’s letter. 

“Monterey, May 22, 1847. 

“Sir:—I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt, on yesterday, of your note of 
the 19th inst., accompanied by a copy of a letter from Com. Biddle to yourself. 

“ The object of your note appears to be to induce me to consent to a further, and in¬ 
definite postponement of a meeting. If such be your desire I am willing to comply with 



it, trusting that you will apprise me of the earliest moment at which the meeting can take 
place consistently with your convenience and sense of propriety. 

“ I am, most respectfully, your obedient servant, 

“ JOHN C. FREMONT. 

“ Col. R. B. Mason, Monterey.” 

THE FOOTE AND FREMONT DIFFICULTY. 

The difficulty between Senators Foote and Fremont grew out of the circum¬ 
stance that Foote charged Fremont, in the Senate, with seeking legislation in 
reference to the gold mines for the sake of his own private advantage, which 
Fremont pronounced false. 

Afterwards they met in the ante-chamber, when Fremont struck Foote and 
brought blood. They were immediately separated by Senator Clarke. Sub¬ 
sequently, Fremont addressed a note to Foote, demanding a retraction of the 
language used by him in debate, to jje signed in the presence of witnesses, and 
a challenge note was left if he refused. 

Mr. Foote declined to sign the paper, but addressed a note in reply to Fre¬ 
mont, disclaiming any intention of giving any personal offence in the language 
used by him in debate. 

The friends of both parties considered this satisfactory to Fremont, but, at 
his instance, the note of Mr. Foote was submitted to Col. Benton, who con¬ 
sented to an arrangement. The following card was the result: 

Washington, September 28, 1850. 

A. Card.— The unnersigned are authorized to state that the difficulty between the 
Hon. H. S. Foote and the Hon. J. C. Fremont, growing out of certain expressions used 
by the former in relation to the California bill in the Senate last evening, has been ad¬ 
justed satisfactorily and honorably to both those gentlemen. 

Signed, A. C. Dodge, 

W. M. Gwin, 

Henry W. Sibley, 
Rodman M. Price. 


CHARGE OF BARGAIN AND INTRIGUE. 

Referring to the document entitled ‘ c Short Answers, &c., n embraced In this 
volume, relative to the connection of Mr. Buchanan with the charge of bar¬ 
gain and intrigue against Mr. Clay, we cite some additional facts bearing 
thereon. See what Gov. Letcher, in a recent speech at Mayslick, Kentucky, 
said, “ that Mr. Buchanan was his personal friend—that he was a gentleman 
and a patriot, for whom he entertained a high regard —and he could not say a 
word against his character as a man. He did not like his political sentiments, 
and opposed him on that account.’* 

Gov. Letcher, be it remembered, is the witness upon whom the opposition 
editors have relied to prove Mr. Buchanan the calumniator of Mr. Clay ! 

George E. Badger a prominent supporter of Mr. Fillmore in 

North Carolina connection with the charge. Mr. Badger is 

ONE OF THOSE OLD LINE WHIGS WHO CAN’T SUPPORT Mr. BUCHANAN. 

Mr. Badger, in his address to his constituents in 1828, said: 

“Mr. Clay, of Kentucky, was one of the four candidates for President; but having 
the lowest number of electoral votes, was excluded from the House. The State from 
which he came had instructed her members, in the event which had then happened, to 
support General Jackson ; but, under the influence of Mr. Clay, a man of intrigue, and 
of eloquence, of unbounded ambition, and of talents above mediocrity, these members, 
with those of other western States, voted for Mr. Adams, and his election was the result. 
Immediately after his elevation, Mr. Adams appointed Mr. Clay Secretary of State, in 



23 


power and influence the second station of our government, and generally thought to be 
an introduction to the first. 

“ Between thes-' two gentlemen there had been previously neither confidence nor af¬ 
fection ; and Mr. Clay had public expressed, in language not to be misunderstood, a 
disbelief of Mr. Adams’s politcal integrity and patriotism. How, then, are you to ac¬ 
count for Mr. Clay’s support of Mr. Adams, in opposition to the declared wishes of 
Kentucky. 

*********** 

“ Take the facts, and answer for yourselves whether it be harsh or uncharitable to 
conclude that I 13 voted for Mr. Adams in the expectation of being Secretary of State, 
and that this expectation decided his vote. Let the friends of Mr. Clay protest against 
the conclusion with whatever of earnestness they can press into the service, and the com¬ 
mon sense of mankind will still find in his conduct the grounds of serious suspicion. 
They may contend that there is not proof to convict him in a court of justice, and sub¬ 
ject him to an ignominious punishment. If this were allowed, it will avail them noth¬ 
ing, for the inquiry is not about inflicting punishment on Messrs. Adams and Clay; it is 
about the propriety of continuing them in public stations of power and influence : and, 
with due submission, the difference is vastly important. We pity the miserablh wretch 
dragged to the bar, for whom the scaffold or whipping-post is in waiting; and the hu¬ 
manity of the law coincides with our own compassion in pronouncing that doubt shall 
be followed by acquittal; but to him who claims our confidence, probable suspicion is 
just ground for refusal; and many are the men dismissed by an acquittal from a court 
of justice, who, upon grounds which the law cannot notice, stand condemned before the 
tribunal of public opinion. Aaron Burr was acquitted—and rightfully acquitted, too— 
for want of evidence; but think you he is a fit object to attract confidence ?—is he enti¬ 
tled to support ? 

Andrew Jackson Donelson, the Know-Nothing 1 candidate for the Vice- 
Presidency, connection with the Bargain and Intrigue slander. 

Now, A. J. Donelson, in August, 1844, as chairman of a Democratic Mass Meeting, 
in announcing the circumstances which prevented the arrival of Hon. Lyun Boyd, of 
Kentucky— 

•‘Called the attention of the meeting to the fact that Mr. Boyd was the distinguished 
Kentuckian who had charged and proved upon Mr. Clay, in his place in Congress, the 
charge of ‘Bargain, Intrigue and Corruption’ in the Presidential election of 1825, and 
who had been sustained by his constituents in his course, he therefore proposed nine 
cheers for Lynn Boyd and the Democracy of his district.” 

There is consistency. 


MR. BUCHANAN AND THE BANKRUPT BILL. 

The enemies of Mr. Buchanan are charging him with having voted for the 
Bankrupt Bill. The Hon. David S. Reid, a Senator from North Carolina, has 
written a letter entirely disproving the charge. We extract from it the follow¬ 
ing record evidence: 

“ At the time this act was passed, Mr. Buchanan was in the United States Senate, and 
on July 24,1841, he is recorded as voting against the passage of the bankrupt bill. See 
Senate Journal for that session, page. 115. On the same day Mr. Buchanan made a 
speech against the bill. (See appendix to Congressional Globe for that session, p. 205.) 

“On February 25, 1848, Mr. Buchanan is recorded as voting for the repeal of the 
bankrupt law. (See Senate Journal for that session, p. 229.) 

“ When the act passed Mr. Fillmore was a member of the House of Representatives, 
and on August 18, 1841, he is recorded as voting for the bankrupt bill. (See House 
Journal for that session, p. 879.) Mr. Fillmore made a speech in favor of the passage 
of the bill August 16, 1841. (See appendix to Congressional Globe for that session, p. 

48 “ On January 17, 1843, Millard Fillmore is recorded as voting against the repeal of 
the bankrupt act. ’ (See House Journal for that session, page 215.) 

“ It will therefore, be seen that Mr. Buchanan did not vote lor the bankrupt law, but 
that Mr. Fillmore did; and moreover that Mr. Buchanan voted for the repeal of the 
jaw, while Mr. Fillmore voted against the repeold ’ 



24 


MR. BUCHANAN VINDICATED FROM THE CHARGE OF HAVING VIOLATED 

THE SUB-TREASURY LAW BY DEPOSITING MONEY IN SIMON CAMERON’S 

BANK. 

We wish to fix attention on the specific charge that “ Mr. Buchanan, while Secretary 
of State, wrote to Mr. Polk recommending $50,000 to be deposited in Simon Cameron’s 
bank,” &c. This letter, the Post is informed, contains sufficient evidence to send Mr. 
Buchanan to the state prison for a violation of the sub-treasury law. If this charge is 
true, Mr. Buchanan ought not to be elected president; and if true, the proof ought to 
be obtained from the proper department to establish it. To show how basely false the 
charge is, we ask attention to the following facts, which appear by the official records: 

“ Mr. Buchanan entered upon his duties as secretary of State, under Mr. Polk, on 
the 4 tk of March , 1845. - The sub-treasury law was passed on the 6 th of August, 1846. 

“On the 4th of November, 1844, the books of the treasury department show that the 
deposits of $50,000 was made in Mr. Cameron’s bank at Middletown, Pennsylvania. 

“The deposite, therefore, which the Post says was recommended by Mr. Buchanan’s 
letter addressed to Mr. Polk, was made by Mr. Tyler, just four months before Mr. Bu¬ 
chanan was appointed secretary of State by Mr. Polk, and just twenty-one months be¬ 
fore the sub-treasury law was passed.” v 

y _ 

TRIUMPHANT VINDICATION OF MR. BUCHANAN BY THE 
MECHANICS OF HARPER’S FERRY, VA. 

MEETING OF THE MECHANICS OF HARPER’S FERRY, VIRGINIA. 

A very large and enthusiastic meeting of the mechanics of Harper’s Ferry was held 
in that place on the 12th of August, 1856, at which, on motion, JOHN PRICE, Esq., 
was called to the chair, and Thomas W. Shriver, Esq., appointed secretary. 

On motion, a committee, consisting of Captain William H. More, T. S. Duke, and 
Michael E. Price, Esqs., was appointed to draught resolutions expressive of the sense of 
the meeting in regard to the base calumnies which have been circulated,, charging Mr. 
Buchanan with being unfriendly to the interests of the working men of the country. 

The committee, retiring for a short time, came into the meeting and made their 

report. 

The mechanics of Harper’s Ferry having seen, with much regret, the unprincipled 
effort of the enemies of the Hon. James Buchanan to revive and fasten upon him the 
charge of having advocated a reduction of the wages of mechanical labor to the rate of 
“ ten cents a day,” have deemed it a duty to one who has so long and so consistently 
represented the interests of the industrial classes, to examine and refute this infamous 
charge, as contrary to history and reason, and contradictory to the whole tenor of his 
private life and public record. 

In proceeding with this refutation, we cannot suppress our honest indignation at the' 
impudent imputation upon the intelligence of the American mechanics which the circu¬ 
lation of this calumny implies. Who are the mechanical classes of our country ? Are 
they like the menial millions of Europe, oppressed by class combinations, kept in the 
most profound ignorance of everything except the manual skill necessary to execute 
some special article of social consumption, and living upon an allotted pittance of their 
own labor ? 

Are they so far debarred the privilege to read and reason as that they may be misled 
by the charge that one who has been through life their benefactor and advocate has de¬ 
liberately tried to deprive them of a just compensation for their labor and the honest 
support of their families ? 

Is it supposed that they cannot discriminate between truth and falsehood ? or distin¬ 
guish an honest friend from a concealed enemy ? 

Enjoying, then, the same advantages of acquiring information with other citizens of 
the republic, accustomed to discuss and investigate for themselves public questions in 
which their rights are involved, they have appealed to the records of the country to tes¬ 
tify upon the truth or falsity of the charge referred to. 

Before, however, proceeding with the investigation of the subject, the mechanics of 
Harper’s Ferry may be pardoned in taking a peculiar interest, when it is known that 
they stand under especial obligations to the statesman whose character they intend to 
vindicate. 

It will be remembered that, in the year 1841, an effort was made to commit the direc- 



tion of the mechanical labor employed in the manufacture of fire arms to officers of the 
army of the United States. The injustice of this measure accasioned an appeal to Con¬ 
gress, and amongst the most earnest and efficient advocates of continuing the mechani¬ 
cal construction of military weapons in the hands of a practical and mechanical civilian 
was the Hon. James Buchanan, as will be seen by reference to his whole congressional 
history, and the following letter addressed by him to a member of the committee sent 
from the Armory at this place to advocate the desired relief: 

(Here the Mechanics publish Mr. Buchanan’s letter of July 24, 1842, con" 
tained on page 25 of the document called Short Answers, in this volume.) 

We proceed with a narrative of historical facts, necessary to the intelligent compre¬ 
hension of this infamous charge. 

During the currency war, which followed the delivery of the country from the monster 
monopoly of the United States Bank, Mr. Buchanan advocated the establishment of the 
independent treasury. One argument used by the enemies of this indpendent measure 
was that it was designed to prostrate the whole banking system, and introduce a metallic 
* currency. Assuming that this was the purpose of its advocates, it was a natural in¬ 
ference that such a financial revolution must paralyze the monetary and industrial 
interests of the country. The wages of the mechanic and laborer must sympathize with 
this universal embarrassment, and great suffering would result to all who depended 
upon the sweat of their brows for an honest maintenance. Such were the consequences 
attributed by its enemies to the establishment of the independent treasnry. The con¬ 
sequences then were denied and controverted by its friends. They disavowed any in¬ 
tention to overthrow the institution of credit. They demonstrated that such an effect 
treasury would reduce the wages of labor. 

would not follow the measure. They denied that the establishment of the independent 

It was- a bold step on the part of the panic-makers that they should have ascribed to 
Mr. Buchanan an admission of the very imputation which himself and others so ve¬ 
hemently denied. Yet it seems that a senator of that day, whose soubriquet of honest 
John Davis was not certainly conferred upon him for the merit of fairness towards his 
political antagonists, charged Mr. Buchanan with having advocated the independent 
treasury for the express purpose of bringing down the wages of labor. Having assumed 
that this consequence was intended and desired by Mr. Buchanan, this honest John 
Davis added in the appendix of his speech the rates of daily labor allowed as the rule 
of mechanical compensation under the despotisms of Europe, as that to be established 
by the independent treasury in this country ; another and an inferior set of calumniators 
reduced this fallacy to a simpler formula of falsehood, and asserted that Mr. Buchanan 
had declared himself in favor of fixing the wages of American laborers and mechanics 
“ at ten cents a day !” Thus did this calumny originate. 

Time has vindicated the wisdom of Mr. Buchanan and of those who aided him in 
separating the federal government from the monetary concerns of the country. It has 
shown that the predictions of the panic-makers have been falsified by the wliolo fiscal 
history of the country. The Bank of the United States has been discontinued ; yet the 
currency is uniform and readily convertible. Domestic exchanges rule below the average 
rate during the bank regime. Commerce is prosperous. Manufactures flourish, and 
the wages of labor are steady and liberal. If the object of those who introduced the 
independent treasury had been to reduce the wages of labor, they should long since have 
set about its repeal. The preposterous consequences predicted by the panic-makers 
have not followed its establishment. The friends of the independent-treasury system 
point to the prosperity which prevails as a vindication of the wisdom that designed it. 

Mr. Buchanan was never the representative of corporate or associated wealth. The 
Bank of the United States, with its whole affiliated influence, located in the metropolis 
of his own State, appealed to him in vain. He steadily represented the great agricul¬ 
tural, mechanical, and mineral interests. He still represents their interests, and it 
would be ridiculous to say that he had deserted them, and that they have nevertheless 
continued their unabated confidence in him for more than twenty years. 

If any specific evidence of the interest taken by Mr. Buchanan in the misfortunes of 
the mechanic was wanting, it will be found in the following letter to the Secretary 
of the Navy, imploring him to afford temporary employment to five hundred mechanics 
thrown suddenly out of work at the Philadelphia navy-yard in 1837s 

(Here the mechanics publish Mr. Buchanan’s letter of December 26, 1837, 
contained on page 26, of the document called Short Answers, in this volume. 

It will be seen from this report that we have examined this charge against Mr. Buclr 


2G 


nnan historically, logically, and by the test of those motives which usually influence 
the relation between representative and constituent. From this investigation we are 
satisfied that the charge is absurd, groundless, and malicious, and that it ought to be 
withdrawn by every antagonist who makes the least pretension to fairness or to justice. 

Resolved , therefore , that the mechanics of Harper’s Ferry have seen with regret that 
the malignant spirit of party has endeavored to impair the confidence of the laboring 
men of the country in the integrity of Hon. James Buchanan, by charging him with a 
wish to reduce the rates of compensation for their labor to a degrading scale of wages, 
established by the class-combinations of Europe. 

Resolved , That the whole public history of Mr. Buchanan proves him to have been the 
representative of the laborious and intelligent class of American citizens upon which the 
power and prosperity of the republic must depend, of which he is a native, to which he 
owes every representative position which he has ever held, and to which he has 
dedicated the patriotic labors of a long and virtuous life. 

Resolved , That with an impartial determination to examine every charge brought 
against the candidate of their choice, the mechanics of Harper’s Ferry are satisfied that 
the charge that the Hon. James Buchanan has ever advocated a low rate of wages for 
the laboring man is contrary to the whole tenor of his private acts, to the charity and 
justice of his nature, and to the democratic theory by which his whole public actions 
have been regulated, and we pronounce these charges false, absurd, and malicious. 

On motion, the above preamble and resolutions were adopted unanimously. 

The meeting then adjourned. 

JOHN PRICE, Chairman, 

Thomas W. Shriver, Secretary. 


OLD LINE WHIGS OF THE COUNTRY IN FAVOR OF MR. 

BUCHANAN. 

OLD LINE WHIGS IN MARYLAND FOR BUCHANAN. 

Hon. Thomas G. Pratt, Hon James Alfred Pearce, present United States Senators. 
Hon. William D. Merrick, former United States Senator. 

Capt. Richard T. Merrick, son of the above. 

Hon. Thomas F. Bowie, of Prince Georges, now in Congress. 

Hon. Revedy Johnson, former United -States Senator and Attorney General under 
General Taylor. 

William R. Gaither, President of the State Senate. 

Hon. John B. Eccleston, of Kent, one of the Judges of the Court of Appeals. 

Hon. Ezekiel F. Chambers, former United States Senator and Judge of this Judicial 
District. 

Hon. Isaac D. Jones, of Somerset. 

Hon. John W. Crisfield, of Somerset. 

Samuel Hambleton, Esq., of Talbot, former State Senator. 

Henry H. Goldsborough, Esq., lawyer of Talbot. 

Daniel F. Henry, Esq., of Dorchester, former Whig candidate for Congress. 

George W. P. Smith, Esq., editor of the Snow Hill Shield. 

Hon. William T. Goldsborough, formor State Senator and Whig candidate for 
Governor. 

R. W. Dirickson, of Worcester, former member of the Legislature. 

Col. Joseph Wickes, of Charlestown, former Deputy Attorney General for Cecil and 
Kent. 

Hon. Alexander Evans, of Cecil, former Representative in Congress. 

George Earl, Esq., of Cecil. 

John A. Croswell, of Cecil. 

John C. Morgan, of St. Mary’s. 

John T. Dorsey, of Howard county, former member of the Legislature and member of 
the Reform Convention. 

William H. Dorsey, of Baltimore, brother of the above. 

S. Teakle Wallace, of Baltimore, a prominent lawyer and former Whig speaker. 
Thomas Yoates Walsh, of Baltimore, former member of Congress. 

William H. Gatchell, Esq., lawyer of Baltimore. 

Robert M. Magraw, Esq., of Baltimore, President of Susquehannah Railroad. 
Thomas Donaldson, Esq., of Howard county, former member of the Legislature and 
member of the Convention which formed the present constitution of the State. 



John K. Longwell, of St. Mary’s county, former member of the Legislature. 
Benedict I. Heard, of St. Mary’s county, a prominent Whig. 


OLD LINE WHIG LAWYERS IN CINCINNATI FOR MR. BUCHANAN. 


Judge James, 

Judge M. R. Tilden, 

Judge Saffin, 

C. Anderson, Esq., 

Joshua Bates, Esq., 

N Longworth, Esq., 

T. Nesmith, Esq., 

D. Worthington, Esq., 

J. Worthington, Esq., 

We add the following: 

Hon. George Evans, Maine, 
Hon. E. W. Farley, Maine, 
Hon. Rufus Choate, Mass., 
lion. James C. Jones, Tenn. 
Hon. A. G. Talbott, Ky., 
Hon. William Preston, Ky., 


Judge T. M. Key, 
Judge W. Johnson, 
Hon. E. H. Spencer, 
Alex. Johnson, Esq., 
A. S. Sullivan, Esq., 
L. Anderson, Esq., 
Patrick Mallon, Esq., 
T. Jones, Esq., 


Hon. J. P. Benjamin, La., 
Hon. Josiah Randall, Penn., 
Hon. William B. Reed, Penn., 
Hon. I E. Hiester, Penn., 
Hon. T. J. Michie, Va., 

And a host of others* 


TO THE OLD LINE WHIGS. 

The following address taken from the National Intelligencer of the 27th of October* 
1840, was issued by the State Whig Central Committee to the Whig Party in Maryland’ 
and shows the doctrine of the Whig party, both as to the naturalization and the Catholic 
question. 

Many sincere Whigs, who in the present contest are heart and hand with the Demo¬ 
cratic party, will rejoice to know that the Whig doctrine, years ago, was that a discus¬ 
sion of religious creeds should not be brought into political contests. They stand now 
where they stood in 1840, and extend the hand of fellowship to all who fight the same 
great battle: 


TO THE WHIGS OF MARYLAND. 

The undersigned, as members of the Whig Central Committee of the State, have 
deemed it their duty to present this statement of their views. The Whigs of Maryland 
will, we have no doubt, sustain this proceeding, and acquiesce in its propriety. 

Gen. Duff Green, as editor of the Pilot, has discussed in his paper subjects which, in 
the opinion of the undersigned, have no proper connection with the Presidential election. 
Within a few days this gentleman has published a prospectus for a newspaper, in which 
he expresses his determination to continue, after the election, discussions on questions 
with which the Whig party has not been, and will not be identified. As an individual, 
Gen. Green has an undoubted right to take such a course as his own judgment may ap¬ 
prove. As an editor of a party paper, he has thought proper to persevere in conduct 
which he knew was disapproved of by the Whig party of Maryland. He has repeatedly 
been requested to avoid all discussions in reference to religious sects, but such requests 
have always been disregarded. He has ever assumed the position that he alone is re¬ 
sponsible for what may appear in his editorial columns. This is undoubtedly true ; and 
our object now is to make this manifest beyond all dispute to the people of Maryland. 
We now emphatically declare that the Whig party is not in any way, or to any extent, 
responsible for what has heretofore been published in the Pilot on the subject of Catholi¬ 
cism and naturalized voters, and will not be responsible for what Gen. Green may be 
pleased hereafter to do. 

It is our decided conviction that the election contests in this country are already suf¬ 
ficiently exciting and absorbing in their character. If the differences of opinion between 
the religious denominations arc to be appealed to, and to be used as incentives to party 
action, no man can forsee how terrible may be the result. Heretofore, after the elections 
have been settled by the ballot box, a calm has succeeded the political storm. With the 
close of the contest have subsided the excited and often angry feelings which prevailed 
during its continuance. Those who were alienated one from the other by political dis- 

I 



28 


eussions have generally returned to their friendly relations after the settlement of the 
questions -which divided them. But if, in addition to the causes of discussion which or¬ 
dinarily exist, a religious controversy is to take place, who can allay the excitement 
which these combined causes may produce, and when will such a contest be finally 
settled. 

In this country every man is permitted to worship his Maker in snch way as his con¬ 
science may approve. Our laws and constitutions were framed to secure to all this glo¬ 
rious privilege. The native and naturalized citizens are equally entitled to the blessings 
of our government. All are equal; and when a stranger takes up his abode here, and 
has remained among us during the time prescribed by the naturalization laws, he has a 
right to become a citizen, and will be entitled to the privileges of citizenship. 

Such being the views of the Committee, and, as they believe, of their constituents, the 
great Whig party of the State of Maryland, they hereby declare their disavowal of any 
concurrence in the present or prospective editorial course of General Green, and devolve 
upon him alone the entire responsibility of his course. 

N. F. Williams, Chairman. 

Geo. R. Richardson, William Chesnut, 

Wm. H. Gatchell, 

James Grieves, 

Samuel Harden, 

Geo. W. Krebs, 

Asa Needham, 

Chas. H. Pitts, 

Neilson Por, 

Geo. M. Gill, 

James Harwood, 


John P. Kennedy, 
Sam’l McLellan, 

A. G. Cole, 

Hugh Birckhead, 
Jas. L. Ridgely, 
Gustav W. Lurman, 
Jas. Frazier, 

Wm. R. Jones, 

T. Yates Walsh. 


THE NORTHERN SUPPORTERS OF MR. FILLMORE. 

The first suggestion of the Revolutionary means of redressing what the 
Abolitionists call the wrongs of Kansas came from the Hon. George Grundy 
Dunn, of Indiana, a candidate for Elector on the Fillmore ticket in that State. 
In a speech in the House of Representatives on the 21st of July last he said : 

“ I would cut off the supplies and stop the wheels of government, rather than let it 
move an inch further in its present most ill.directed and perilous course. If those who 
control that course are refractory—if they will not heed the clear and distinct utteran¬ 
ces of an overwhelming public sentiment, justly aroused to indignation against a great 
wrong—if the dangers that threaten us will not warn or check them, I would cut off the 
sinews of power and thus compel submission to an overwhelming public necessity. I" Cries 
of ‘ Good!’ ‘That is it!’ ‘That is the doctrine !’ ” 

He was speaking in favor of a restoration of the Missouri Compromise at 
the time. The public sentiment to which he alluded was that which he sup¬ 
posed to be in favor of such restoration. In the same speech he said : 

“I shall most cheerfully give my vote to that candidate who both hails from, and lives 
in, New York, and not to him who hails from, and lives in Pennsylvania, or to him who, 
living in New York, for the purpose of this canvass, hails from California—or to any 
other, who is amphibious, either in his home or his principles.’" [Laughter.] 

The following is from Mr. Bayard Clarke, a member of Congress from 
New-York, a prominent Know-Nothing and an ardent supporter of Mr. Fill¬ 
more: 

“ Some have wondered that a certain class of our naturalized citizens should be found 
sustaining the Cincinnati platform, and the Presidential candidate who has merged his 
individuality in that platform, while another class sustain the platform of freedom in 
opposition to the aggressions of slavery. But to me there is no mystery in all this. It 
only illustrates the natural affinity of Jesuitism with slavery. That part of our foreign 
born population who support Mr. Buchanan are, with rare exceptions, the subjects of 
the Roman hierachy, and consequently friendly to the despotic principle ,, of which sla¬ 
very is a logical necessity. On the contrary, the foreign born voters who oppose the 
extension of slavery, with the platform and candidate of the Cincinnati convention are 



29 


generally a more intelligent class of citizens, owing no allegiance to Rome, and disdain¬ 
ing all alliance with the slave power, which degrades labor, and despises the laborer. 
The former are Catholics, the latter Protestants. Of course there are exceptions in both 
cases, but this classification will be found generally correct, and the explanation of the 
fact will also be found in the natural affinity of one despotic system with another. Said 
I not rightly that Protestantism is significant of all that contributes to the elevation, the 
progress, and freedom of our race ? As a Protestant I can do no less, then, than oppose 
the aggressions of the slave-power; and when I find Jesuitism allying itself with that 
power, and striving to secure the success of its platform and its candidate, I cannot fail 
to remark, that consistency demands from all who love the Protestant principle, oppo¬ 
sition to the usurpations of slavery, no less than relentless hostility to the aggressions of 
popery. They are TWIN DEMONS ; and, God helping me, lam resolved, within the 
limits of constitutional action, to give no quarter to either.” 


The New Albany Tribune, the leading Fillmore paper in Indiana, has the 
following ticket at the head of its columns: 

For President, MILLARD FILLMORE. 

For Vice President, A. J. DONELSON. 


Electors for the State at large. 

George G. Dunn, of Lawrence county, Andrew L. Osborne, of Laporte. 

District Electors. 

1 . 

2 . 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6 . 

The same paper contains the following: 


James G. Jones, of Vanderburf. 
David T. Laird, of Ferry. 

John Baker, of Lawrence. 
William E. White, of Dearborne 
Fred. Johnsonbough, of Wayne. 
Henry H. Bradley, of Johnson. 


7. William K. Edwards, of Vigo. 

8 . James Prather, of Montgomery. 

9. Thomas S. Stanfield, of St. Joseph 

10. John B. Howe, of Langran^e. 

11. William R. Hale, of Wabash. 


COALITION BETWEEN FILLMORE AND FREMONT. 

The Fillmore State Convention of Indiana have just united with the Fremont or Black 
Republican party, by nominating the same Electoral ticket for the State. If any of our 
Democratic friends have been feeding themselves up with the hope of a division among 
the American and Republican parties, upon the State ticket, they would do well to give 
that hope up as utterly futile. 

The fusion of the parties for the Presidency is now complete, which seals the fate of 
Buchanan Democracy in Indiana. 

The friends of Mr. Fillmore should now go to work to secure a majority of the popu¬ 
lar vote of the State of Indiana for him; if they succeed, of which we have no doubt, 
the Electoral vote will be cast for him. Lei there be no crashing between the friends of 
Fillmore and Fremont , because their cause is one cause. Let the energies of the friends of 
each be directed against Buchanan, and we will have no more slave soil to curse our 
government . 

The Huntington (Indiana) Gazette, a Fremont paper, has the same Electoral 
ticket in its columns, headed as follows : 

For President, JOHN C. FREMONT, of New York. 

For Vice President, W. L. DAYTON, of New Jersey. 

MORE FUSION. 

The Gazette published at Mauch Chunk, Pennsylvania, has the following 
ticket at its head : 



80 


WHIG, AMERICAN AND REPUBLICAN UNION TICKET, 

For Canal Commissioner, THOMAS E. COCHRAN, of York County. 

For Auditor General, DARWIN PHELPS, of Armstrong county. 

For Surveyor General, BARTHOLOMEW LAPORTE, of Bradford county. 

IS NOT THE FUSION COMPLETE ? 

The Eagle, a Fillmore paper published at Newark, New Jersey, has the 
following caption to the American platform adopted at Philadelphia, Februrary 
21, 1856: 

THE PLATFORM MR. FILLMORE ENDORSES AND STANDS ON! 

America for Americans, and Opposition to the Repeal of the 
Missouri Compromise. 


• AMERICANISM AT THE NORTH. 

THE KNOW-NOTHING PLATFORM OF THE STATE OF MAINE. 

Bangor, February 1st, 1855. 

“ Resolved , That the Declaration of Independence, the tone and tenor of the consti¬ 
tution, the ordinance of 1787, the words and deeds of the founders of this republic, all 
indicate that our forefathers intended that slavery be sectional, not national—tempora¬ 
ry, not permanent. 

11 Resolved, That native-Americanism, anti-slavery, and temperance are the foundation 
stones of our order, equally deserving our consideration; and that before giving our 
political support to any man, for any office, we will imperatively demand his entire com. 
mittal in favor of these great and cardinal principles. 

“ Resolved, That we solemnly protest against the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, 
the passage of the Nebraska-'Kansas bill, and the fugitive slave law, as violations of the 
rights of the free States, and tending to the destruction of the free institutions of our 
country.” 

KNOW-NOTHING PARTY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ON SLAVERY. 

“ Resolved, That the Declaration of Independence, the tones and deeds of the founders 
of this republic, all indicate that our forefathers intended that slavery should be sec¬ 
tional, not national—temporary, not permanent. 

“ Resolved, That as a political party pledged to regard and watch over the best inter¬ 
ests of the whole Union, and to labor for its integrity and perpetuity we solemnly protest 
against the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas and Nebraska bill, and the 
fugitive slave law, as violating the spirit of the Constitution, and tending to the des¬ 
truction of the free institutions of the country. 

“ Resolved, That we never will, under any circumstances, consent to the admission of 
slavery into any portion of the territory embraced in the compact of 1820, and from 
which it was then excluded by the mutual agreement of both the northern and southern 
States.” 


MR. FILLMORE IN FAVOR OF ALIEN SUFFRAGE. 

Mr. Filmore signed the Washington Territorial bill in 1853. That hill 
gives aliens the right of suffrage. 

WASHINGTON TERRITORY. 

“ Every white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years, who shall have 
been a resident of said Territory at the time of the passage af this act, and shall possess 
the qualifications hereinafter prescribed, shall be entitled to vote at the first election 
and shall be eligible to any office within the said Territory; but the qualifications of 
voters, and of holding office at all subsequent elections, shall be such as shall be pre- 




31 


scribed by the Legislative Assembly: Provided , That the right of suffrage, and of holding 
office, shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States above the age of twenty- 
one years, anb those above that age who shall have declared on oath their intention to 
become such, and shall have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United 
States and the provisions of this act. 

THE STATES, AND NOT CONGRESS, HAVE ALONE THE 
RIGHT TO REGULATE SUFFRAGE WITHIN THEIR RE¬ 
SPECTIVE LIMITS. 

The Know-Nothing orators clamor about aliens voting in some of the states. 
They promised the people if they were elevated to power that they would stop 
it. Have any of them attempted to do it in Congress ? No! Why? Because 
they know Congress has no power over the subject. Congress can make a 
man a citizen of the United States , but not a voter in the states, nor can it take 
from him the right of voting therein. The states have the controlling power 
in that respect. Thus Virginia years since prescribed in her constitution that 
a man without a property qualification could not vote. The man thus pre¬ 
scribed was a citizen of the United States. Such citizenship it will thus be 
seen did not give him the right to vote. Virginia controlled that matter and 
decided that he should not vote. This fact is merely cited as an illustration. 


FOREIGN PAUPERS AND CONVICTS. 

Alabama, California, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, 
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont and Virginia, the only states, 
through the seaports of which foreign paupers and convicts can find access to our 
shores, have already on their statute books, ample law to prevent the immigra¬ 
tion of convicts, and to reimburse those States the damages arising from the 
support of paupers. 


PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL ENGLAND SATISFIED THAT NO 
TEMPORAL ALLEGIANCE IS DUE, BY CATHOLICS, TO 
THE POPE. 

The odious Catholic disabilities which existed in Protestant Episcopal Eng¬ 
land for so many years, were, no doubt, established on account of the idea that 
Catholics owed a Temporal Allegiance to the Pope. Mr. Pitt, on the part of 
the British Government, instituted the following inquiries, and received the 
subjoined answers. The result was that nearly, if not all, of the disabilities 
were removed by England : 

« 1 . Has the Pope, or cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church 
of Rome, any civil authority, power, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence whatsoever, within 
the realm of England ? 

“ 2. Can the Pope, or cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church 
of Rome, absolve or dispense with his Majesty’s subjects, from their oath of allegiance, 
upon any pretext whatsoever ? 

“3. Is there any principle in the tenets of the Catholic faith by which Catholics are 
justified in not keeping faith with heretics, or other persons differing from them in reli¬ 
gious opinions, in any transaction, either of a public or a private nature ? 

These questions were sent for answer to the Catholic universities of Paris, 
of Douay, of Alcala, of Valladolid, and of Salamanca. These several uni¬ 
versities are conducted by the most learned men of Europe, and they all res¬ 
ponded with frankness and promptness to the questions. We have space only 




for the answer of one, though we have them all before us, and state that the 
answers of all are strictly the same. To show what they all answered, we 
select the response of the University of Paris, as follows: 

Abstract from the answers of the Sacred Faculty of Divinity of Paris to the above queries. 

After an introduction, according to the usual form of the university, they answer the 
first query by declaring— 

Neither the Pope, nor the cardinals, nor any body of men, nor any other person of the 
Church of Rome, hath any civil authority, civil power, civil jurisdiction, or civil pre¬ 
eminence whatsoever, in any kingdom, and, consequently, none in the kingdom of Eng¬ 
land, by reason or virtue of any authority, power, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence by di¬ 
vine institution inherent in, or granted, or by any other means belonging to the Pope, 
or the Church of Rome. This doctrine the sacred faculty of divinity of Paris has always 
held, and upon every occasion maintained, and upon every occasion has rigidly proscrib¬ 
ed the contrary doctrines from her schools. 

Answer to second query. Neither the Pope, nor the cardinals, nor any body of men, 
or any person of the Church of Rome, can, by virtue of the keys, absolve or release the 
subjects of the King of England from their oath of allegiance. 

This and the first query are so intimately connected, that the answer of the first im¬ 
mediately and naturally applies to the second, &c. 

Answer to the third query. There is no tenet in the Catholic church by which Cath¬ 
olics are justified in not keeping faith with hereties, or those who differ from them in 
matters of religion. The tenet that it is lawful to break faith with heretics is so repug¬ 
nant to common honesty and the opinions of Catholics, that there is nothing of which 
those who have defended the Catholic faith against Protestants have complained more 
heavily than the malice and calumny of their adversaries in imputing this tenet to them ; 
&.C., &c., &c. 

Given at Paris, in the general assembly of the Sorborne, held on Thursday, the 11th 
day before the calends of March, 1789. [Signed in due form.] 


IDENTIY OF PRINCIPLE BETWEEN HARTFORD CONVEN- 
TIONISM AND KNOW NOTHINGISM. 


Every one recollects the odious Hartford Convention, held during the War 
of 1812—a Convention, representing constituencies in the New England 
States, who opposed their country in that war and hung blue lights out on the 
coast to enable the ships of the enemy to know the movements of our own 
gallant navy and conspire the more easily to defeat it. It had its secrecy, 
like the Know Nothings. 

The first resolution read: 

Resolved , That the most inviolate secrecy shall be observed by each member of this 
Convention, including the Secretary, as to all propositions, debate, and proceedings 
thereof, until this injunction shall be suspended or altered. 

A part of its platform, like that of the Know Nothings, proscribed naturalized 
citizens. 


ONE OF THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE 
HARTFORD CONVENTION. 

Resolved, That no person who shall here¬ 
after be naturalized shall be eligible as a 
member of the Senate or House of Repre¬ 
sentatives of the United States, nor capa¬ 
ble of holding any civil office under authori¬ 
ty of the United States. 


THIRD ARTICLE OF THE KNOW 
NOTHING PLATFORM OF 1856. 

3. Americans must rule America; and, 
to this end, native- born citizens should be 
selected for all State, Federal, and munici¬ 
pal offices, or government employment, in 
preference to naturalized citizens. 


THE BIBLE VS. KNOW NOTHINGISM. 

“If a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him; but the stranger 
that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you , and thou shalt love him 
as thyself, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. 1 am the Lord your God.— Book 
of Leviticus , 19*A chapter , 33 d and 34 th verses. 




33 


GEORGE III, A KNOW-NOTHING. 

Amongst the counts in that grand indictment framed by our Revolutionary 
fathers —the Declaration of Independence, is one charging his Royal highness 
with the infliction upon the American Colonies of one of the very abuses now 
sought to be engrafted upon the policy of the country by the Know-Nothing 
party. Read from that Declaration of Independence with what emphasis they 
rebuked the Know-Nothingism of that Royal tyrant. 

“He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose ob¬ 
structing the laws for the naturalization of foreigners, refusing to pass others to en¬ 
courage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of 
land.” 


PRINCIPLE OF THE NATURALIZATION LAWS VINDICATED 
BY THE WAR OF 1812. 

In a paragraph preceding this we show the identity of principle be¬ 
tween Know-Nothingism and Hartford Conventionism. The Hartford 
Conventionists opposed the war of 1812. The war of 1812 was fought 
by this country for the reason that England denied the right of a man 
born under her flag to swear away his allegiance to her Government and be¬ 
come a citizen of the United States. Denying this right she attempted to 
search our vessels, take from them those in the service of the United States 
who were born under English dominion. War was the result. Victory for 
our arms ended the contest. The basis principle of the naturalization laws 
was vindicated. The Know-Nothings are endeavoring to destroy these laws, 
with the halo of the glory of the revolution and the war of 1812 thrown around 
them. Think of this and read the following paragraph: 


FOREIGN INFLUENCE. 

It was against this kind of foreign influence that Washington advised his 
countrymen when he said; 

“ Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow 
citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake.” 

Washington was not thinking of the poor emigrant, but of influence like the following, 
which appeared in the London Chronicle, one of Victoria’s organs, in reference to our 
Presidential contest: 

“ We should be sorry to see Mr. Buchanan elected, because he is in favor of preserv¬ 
ing the obnoxious institutions, as they exist, AND THE UNITY OF THE STATES. 
There is no safety for European monarchial governments, if the progressive spirit of the 
Democracy of the United States is allowed to succeed. ELECT FltEMONT AND THE 
FIRST BLOW TO THE SEPARATION OF THE UNITED STATES IS EFFECTED 1 ” 


ANTAGONISM BETWEEN THE OATH OF THE KNOW 
NOTHINGS AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED 


STATES. 

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 

Art. VI.—“ No religious test shall ever be 
required as a qualification to any office of 
public trust under this government.” 


KNOW NOTHING CONSTITUTION. 

Art. III.—“The object of this organiza¬ 
tion shall be to resist the insidious policy 
of the' Church of Rome, and other foreign 
influence against the institutions of the 
country, by placing in all offices in the gift of 
the people, or by appointment, none but na¬ 
tive born Protestant citizens 



34 


Compare it also with the act of religious toleration in the Constitution of 


Virginia, penned by Thomas Jefferson, 
on his tombstone: 

16. That religion, or the duty which 
we owe to our Creator, and the manner of 
discharging it, can be directed only by rea¬ 
son and conviction—not by force or vio¬ 
lence ; and therefore, all men are equally 
entitled to the free exercise of religion, ac¬ 
cording to the dictates of conscience ; and 
that it is the mutual duty of all to practise 
Christian forbearance, love, and charity 
towards each other. 


the authorship of which is his epitaph 

KNOW NOTHING OATH. 

You futhermore promise and declare 
that you will not vote nor give your influ¬ 
ence for any man for any office in the gift 
of the people, unless he be an American 
born citizen, in favor of Americans ruling 
America, nor if he be a Roman Catholic 
Again: “ You solemnly and sincerely 
swear that, if it may be done legally, you 
will, when elected to any office, remove all 
foreigners and Roman Catholics from office , 
and that you will in no case appoint such to 
office.” 


PROSCRIPTION OF ONE RELIGIOUS SECT WILL LEAD 
EVENTUALLY TO THE PROSCRIPTION IN TURN OF ALL. 

The following, says the Trenton True American, is taken from a pamphlet 
written by a member of one of the American orders to prove that the Methodist 
Church ought not to be tolerated in a free country. 

Recollect Methodists that this is from one of a faction that is endeavoring 
to get your aid to proscribe your Catholic fellow citizens. 

“But again— the very organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church is dangerous 
to the liberties of a free people. Suppose a crisis to arrive in political action, in which 
the hierarchy of the Methodist Church is interested. From the dependence of all the 
parts on one great central power, it is easy to perceive how the suffrages of most of the 
members may be controlled by the bishops. Let the bishop suggest to the presiding 
elders that the interests of their ecclesiastical despotism will be subserved by the election 
of a certain set of men to office; the presiding elders use their influence over the 
preachers, the preachers over the class leaders, and the class leaders over their class 
members, and thus the balance af power in a political contest may rest in the hands of 
seven Episcopal Methodist Bishops. There is as much danger of this, as there is of 
Romanism accomplishing a similar result; provided the occasion requires it. It may 
be said that the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church are too independent to be 
thus influenced; but, while they submit to the degradation to which I have shown they 
are subjected in Church matters, let them not speak of independence in political matters. 
Let them become ecclesiastically free, and then it may be hoped that they would dare 
to becom q politically free if the bishops undertook to prevent it. 

“ I have thus briefly shown that Episcopal Methodism is anti-American in its spirit 
and tendency, and that it is a dangerous foe to republicanism. I have shown that it 
had its origin in usurpation —that its very organization provides for the support and ex¬ 
tension of assumed power , and that this power may be oppressively exercised without re- 
restriction. I have shown that Methodist Episcopacy contains in itself the very elements 
of an absolute despotism , and therefore must ultimately, unless checked, subvert and 
destroy our republican institutions. 


A KNOW-NOTHING MAYOR vs. THE CONSTITUTION. 

The Constitution says: 

“ Sec. II— Article III.— No person held to service or labor in one State, under the 
laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation 




/ 


35 


\ 


therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of 
the party to whom such service or labor may be duo.” 

Here is what a Know-Nothing Mayor, whose election was hailed in every 
section, even in the South, as a great American triumph, said: 

“ Mayor’s Office, Phila., March 6 , 1835. 

Mr. Samuel Johnson—Dear Sir: With the kindest feelings for you personally, and 
with great respect for your character as an officer, it is proper that I should inform you that 
tf you act as the agent of Louisiana to return Warwick, charged with encouraging the escape 
of a fugitive slave to that State, I will consider it my duty to discharge you immediately from 
the police force of this city. 

■ “ Yours, respectfully, R T. CONRAD, Mayor.” 


KENNETH RAYNER. 

No man in the country pretends to be more afraid of the Pope, at this time 
than Kenneth Rayner. He is his terror by day as well as by night A Catholic,) 
to his eyes, is a monstrum horrendum. He wants legislation against Catholics, 
although he knows that it is neither practicable or constitutional to do it. 
But let us exhibit the humbuggery of Know-Nothingism, by showing when 
Rayner had it in his hands to move to oppress them, what he then said. In 
the Constitutional Convention of North Carolina, in 1835, he, the said Ray¬ 
ner, thus spoke: 

“ I do not conceive that we have anything to do with the tenets of any particular 
creed. We have not to decide between the merits of contending sects. We have not to 
inquire whether the Pope of Rome is the legal custodian of the Keys of Christ’s King¬ 
dom, or whether, (according to the opinion of some,) he is the many-headed monster 
mentioned in the Apocalypse. 

“ But it is said, if the Catholic is excluded from office, that will not deprive him of the 
right of worshipping God according to the dictates of his own conscience. Sir, the right 
of worshipping God free from all personal pains and penalties, is a right which can now 
be enjoyed in any country in Christendom. An exclusion from the honors, the profits, 
and the emoluments of the State, is the highest persecution which public opinion will 
tolerate in any Christian country in this enlightened age. So that if you sanction the 
principle recognized in the 32d Article, you use the rod of persecution with as unspar¬ 
ing a hand as it is used in Spain, or the States of the Church. And if you exclude one 
sect, why not another and another, and finally all. except one ? 

“Retain that Article, and I assert it, the Catholic and Jew will be placed under the 
ban of proscription, no matter how great may be his merit; although he may love his 
country with a patriotism as pure as the first love of woman ; although he may pour 
out his blood like water in her defence ; yet, for daring to ‘ worship God according to 
the dictates of his own conscience,’ you cut him olf from all hope of political preferment 
and from all stimulus to ambition. Like the Israelites in Egypt, he will be oppressed 
by the land in which he lives, the soil on which he treads, and like them, he will have 
left no other resource but to turn back upon the graves of his fathers, and take up his 
march to a more tolerant clime. Sir, the exclusion from office for opinion’s sake, in 
this enlightened age, proceeds from the same spirit of bigotry and superstition which 
has preyed upon mankind from the building of Babel to the present time.” 

Mr. Rayner concludes his defence of the Catholics in the following manner : 

“ Sir, is this convention ready to incorporate into our fundamental law the doctrine, 
that ‘honesty, capability, and faithfulness to the Constitution,’ is not a sufficient quali¬ 
fication for office, but that he who obtains it must abjure a certain particular faith ? 
Sir, who constituted us judges of the hearts and consciences of men ? What right have 
we to impugn the motives of our fellow men ? It is asserting one of the attributes of 
the Deity himself, for it is the Lord alone that pondereth the heart. Sir, you may carry 
on this system of persecution, but there is one point beyond which you cannot go. You 
may subject the body to privation and torture, but you cannot fetter the 'mind—fetters 
cannot bind it—tyrants cannot enchain it—dungeons cannot confine it—it will rise su¬ 
perior to the powers of fate, and aspire to Him who gave it.” 

For the correctness of the quotation (says the Fayetteville Carolinian) we 
refer the reader to the Debates of the Convention of 1835, pages 262-3-4. 



36 


Mr. Alex. H. H. Stuart, one of the Know-Nothing Electors in the State of 
Virginia, who was Secretary of the Interior under the administration of Mr. 
Fillmore, thus endeavored to blarney our Irish Fellow Citizens, when he was 
in hopes that his Master my Lord Fillmore would be the Whig nominee and 
would like to have their votes. 

Washington, March 13, 1852. 

Gentlemen:—I have been favored with the receipt of your invitation to attend a pub¬ 
lic dinner to be given in the city of Philadelphia on the 17th inst., in celebration of the 
anniversary of St. Patrick’s day.” 

The occasion is an interesting one, and there is no portion of our citizens whom 
it would give me greater pleasure to meet around the social board. I have always 
regarded it as a happy omen of the perpetuity of our Government, that so large a 
portion of the emigration to our shores is of the Irish race—kindred to ourselves— 
and who so readily become incorporated with us. I have been struck with the facility with 
which they adapt themselves to our institutions, rightly entering into their scope and spirit — 
becoming, in a word, thoroughly Amerivu/iized. And I feel assured that, while the ap¬ 
proaching festival will naturally call up hallowed recollections of old Erin, it will be 
with hearts full of attachments and devotion to the home of their adoption, and with 
sentiments that will do honor to the character of American citizens. 

Regretting that official engagements will forbid my acceptance of your kind invitation, 
and wishing you all joy on this festive occasion. I am, very respectfully, 

Your obedient servant, 

ALEX. H. II. STUART. 


EXTRACT FROM THE WILL OF GENERAL JACKSON. 

“ I bequeath to my well-beloved nephew, Andrew J. Donelson, son of Samuel Donelson, 
deceased, the elegant sword presented to me by the State of Tennessee with this injunction, 
that he fail not to use it when necessary in support and protection of our glorious Union , and 
for the protection of the Constitutional rights of our beloved country, should they be assailed 
by foreign or domestic traitor s.” 

Where was this sword and its owner during the Mexican War ? 

O 


HUMPHREY MARSHALL AND FREMONT. 

The Loudoun, Va., Democratic Mirror, speaking of a speech made by Humphrey 
Marshall, at Leesburg, r cently, says: 

“ He was also very severe upon Mr. Buchanan, charged him with being the squatter 
sovereignty candidate of the North, and declared that h$ would as leave see John C. 
Fremont, or the Devil himself made President as James Buchanan.” 


PRENTICE AN ABOLITIONIST. 

In 1829, Prentice was the editor of a paper called the Weekly Review, printed at 
Hartford, Connecticut, and on the 27th of July, of that year, he published the following 
editorial in that paper. Read it slaveholders : 

“ The purchase of Texas must be opposed. Every man who does not wish to see the 
power of the Northern and Western States depart forever: every man who does not 
wish to see a dozen new slave States added to the Union, and to hear the cries of addi¬ 
tional millions of wretched negroes going up to meet the Lord in the air and imprecate 
vengeance upon our land, will oppose the purchase of Texas with a deep and irresistible 
determination. 





37 


LAST BALLOT FOR SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRE¬ 
SENTATIVES, 34TH CONGRESS. 

On the 2d day of February, 1856, the House adopted a resolution, that on 
the third ballot, who ever received the highest plurality should be the Speaker. 
The third ballot resulted in the choice of Mr. Banks. It was as follows: 


Nathaniel P. Banks received.....*.108 

William Aiken.100 

Henry M. Fuller. 0 

Lewis D. Campbell. 4 

Daniel Wells... 1 


The following is the vote in detail: 

For Mr. Banks —Messrs. Albright, Allison, Ball, Barbour, Henry Bennett, Benson, 
Billinghurst, Bingham, Bishop, Bliss, Bradshaw, Brenton, Buffington, Burlingame, Jag. 
H. Campbell, Lewis D.. Campbell, Chaffee, Ezra Clark, Clawson, Colfax, Comins, Covode, 
Cragin, Cumback, Damrell, Timothy Davis, Day, Dean, De Witt, Dick, Dickson, Dodd* 
Durfee, Edie, Flagler, Galloway, Giddings, Gilbert, Granger, Grow, Robert B. Hall, Har¬ 
lan, Holloway, Thomas R. Horton, Howard, Kelsey, King, Knapp, Knight, Knowlton, 
Knox, Kunkel, Leiter, Mace, Matteson, McCarty, Meacham, Killian Miller, Morgan, 
Morrill, Mott, Murray, Nichols, Norton, Andrew Oliver, Parker, Pearce, Pelton, Pen¬ 
nington, Perry, Pettit, Pike, Pringle, Purviance, Ritchie, Robbins, Roberts, Robisou, 
Sabin, Sage, Sapp, Sherman, Simmons, Spinner, Stanton, Stranahan, Tap pan, Thoring- 
ton, Thurston, Todd, Trafton, Tyson, Wade, Walbridge, Waldron, Calwalader C. Wash- 
burne, Elihu B. Washburne, Israel Washburn, Watson, Welch, Wood, Woodruff, and 
Woodworth. 

For Mr. Aiken —Messrs. Allen, Barksdale, Bell, Ilendley S. Bennett, Bocock, Bowie, 
Boyce, Branch, Brooks, Burnett, Cadwalader, John P. Campbell, Carlisle, Caruthers, 
Caskie, Clingman, Howell Cobb, Williamson R. W. Cobb, Cox, Crawford, Davidson, Den¬ 
ver, Dowdell, Edmundson, Elliott, English, Etheridge, Eustis, Evans, Faulkner, Flor¬ 
ence, Foster, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Goode, Greenwood, Augustus Hall, ,T. Morrison Har¬ 
ris, Sampson W. Harris, Thomas L. Harris, Herbert, Hoffman, Houston, Jewett, George 
W. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, Keitt, Kelly, Kennett, Kidwell, Lake, Letcher, Lindley, 
Lumpkin, Alexander K. Marshall, Humphrey Marshall, Samuel S. Marshall, Maxwell, 
McMullin, McQueen, Smith Miller, Millson, Mordecai, Oliver, Orr, Paine, Peck, Phelps, 
Porter, Powell, Puryear, Quitman, Reade, Ready, Ricaud, Rivers, Ruffin, Rust, San- 
didge, Savage, Shorter, Samuel A. Smith, William Smith, William R. Smith, Sneed, 
Stephens, Stewart, Swope, Talbott, Trippe, Underwood, Vail, Walker, Warner, Watkins, 
Wells, Wheeler, Williams, Winslow, Daniel B. Wright, John V. Wright,-and Zollicoffer. 

For Mr. Fuller —Messrs. Broom, Bayard Clark, Cullen, Henry Winter Davis, Mill- 
ward, and Whitney. 

For Mr. Campbell —Messrs. Dunn, Harrison, Moore, and Scott. 

For Mr. Wells —Mr. Hickman. 

Messrs. Broom, Clarke, Fuller, Whitney, and Richardson who voted for 
Mr. Aiken the day before, did not vote for him on the last ballot. Messrs. 
Broome, Clarke, and Whitney voted for Mr. Fuller. Mr. Fuller was in the 
Hall and did not vote. It was stated that he had paired off with Mr. Barclay, 
who was also in the Hall. This Mr. Barclay denies. Messrs. Faulkner, 
Alexander K. Marshall, and Keitt. who were not present the day before voted 
for Mr. Aiken then. Mr. Richardson had to resume a pair with Mr. Emrie, 
of Ohio, which Mr. Faulkner had temporarily taken off his hands. 







38 


LAST DAY OF THE CALLED SESSION. 

(From the Daily Globe.) 

Saturday, August 30, 1856. 

In the House of Representatives Mr. Campbell, of Ohio, by leave, reported 
from the Ways and Means Committee another Army appropriation bill, with 
the proviso, that no part of the military of the United States, for the support of 
which appropriations are made by this act, shall be employed in aid of the 
enforcement of any enactment of the body claiming to be the Territorial Leg¬ 
islature of Kansas. 

The previous question was seconded, and under the operation thereof, the 
bill was read a third time and passed, by the following vote : 

YEAS.—Messrs. Albright, Allison, Barbour, Barclay, Henry Bennett, Benson,Billing- 
hurst, Bingham, Bliss, Bradshaw, Brenton, Buffington, James H. Campbell, Lewis I). 
Campbell, Chaffee, Ezra Clark, Clawson, Colfax, Comins, Covode, Cragin, Cumback, 
Damrell, Henry Winter Davis, Timothy Davis, Dean, De Witt, Dick, Dickson, Dodd, 
Durfee. Edie, Edwards, Emrie, Flagler, Galloway, Giddings, Gilbert, Granger, Grow, 
Harlan, Haven, Holloway,|Thomas:R. Horton, Howard, Hugliston, Kelsey, King, Knapp, 
Knight, Knowlton, Knox, Kunkel, Leiter, Matteson, McCarty, Morgan, Morrill, Mott, 
Murray, Norton, Andrew Oliver, Parker, Pelton, Pettit, Pike, Pringle, Purviance, 
Ritchie, Robbins, Roberts, Robison, Sabin, Sage, Sapp, Scott, Sherman, Simmons, 
Spinner, Stranahan, Tappan, Thorington, Thruston, To*!d, Trafton, Tyson, Wade, 
Wakeman, Walbridge, Waldron, Cadwalader C. Washburne, Elihu B. Washburne, Israel 
Washburne, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wood, Woodruff, and Woodworth—99. 

NAYS—Messrs. Aiken, Akers, Barksdale, Bell, Hendley S. Bennett, Bocock, Bowie, 
Boyce, Branch, Burnett, Cadwalader, John P. Campbell, Carlile, Caskie, Clingman, 
Howell Cobb, Williamson R. W. Cobb, Cox, Craige, Crawford, Cullen, Dowdell, Dunn, 
Edmundson, Elliott, Etheridge, Florence, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Goode, Greenwood, 
Augustus Hall, J. Morrison Harris, Sampson W. Harris, Thomas L. Harris, Harrison, 
Hickman, Hoffman, Houston, Jewett, George W. Joues, J. Glancy Jones, Kennett, Kid- 
well, Lake, Letcher, Lumpkin, Mace, Alexander K. Marshall, Humphrey Marshall, 
Maxwell, McMullin, McQueen, Smith Miller, Millson, Mordecai Oliver, Orr, Pennington, 
Phelps, Powell, Puryear, Quitman, Ricaud, Rivers, Ruffin, Rust, Shorter, William Smith, 
William R. Smith, Stanton, Stewart, Talbott, Vail, Walker, Warner, Wheeler, Daniel B. 
Wright, and John V. Wrigit—77. 

Iu the Senate, the bill having been taken up for consideration, Mr. Hunter 
moved that the Kansas proviso be stricken out of the bill, which was agreed 
to by the following vote: 

YEAS.—Messrs. Adams, Allen, Bayard, Bell of Tennessee, Bright, Brodhead, Brown, 
Butler, Cass, Clay, Crittenden, Douglas, Geyer, Houston, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, 
Jones of Tennessee, Mason, Pratt, Pugh, Reid, Thompson of Kentucky, Toucey, Weller, 
and Wright—26. 

NAYS —Messrs. Durkee, Foot, Foster, Harlan, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson—7. 

The vote in the Senate on the passage of the bill as amended, was the same 
as the last except one less in the affirmative, Mr. Bell of Tennessee, who voted 
on the previous vote being absent. 

IN THE HOUSE. 

A message having been received from the Senate, announcing that that body had 
passed the Army appropriation bill with an amendment striking out the Kansas proviso, 
the House proceeded to consider the amendment; when it was agreed to by the follow¬ 
ing vote: 

Yeas.— Messrs, Aiken, Akers, Barksdale, Bell, Bennett of Mississippi, Bocock, Bowie, 
Boyce, Branch, Burnett, Cadwalader, Campbell of Kentucky, Carlile, Caskie, Clingman, 
Cobb of Georgia, Cobb of Alabama, Cox, Craige, Crawford, Cullen, Davidson, Davis of 
Maryland, Denver, Dowdell, Edmundson, Elliot, Etheridge, Eustis, Evans, Faulkner, 
Florence, Fuller of Maine, Goode, Greenwood, Hall of Iowa, Harris of Maryland, Harris 


39 


of Alabama, Harris of Illinois, Harrison, Haven, Hickman, Hoffman, Houston, Jewett, 
Jones of Tennessee, Jones of Pennsylvania, Keitt, Kelly, Kennett, Kidwell, Lake, 
Letcher, Lumpkin, A, K. Marshall of Kentucky, II. Marshall of Kentucky, Marshall of 
Illinois, Maxwell, McMullin, McQueen, Miller of Indiana, Milson, Oliver of Missouri, 
Orr, Packer, Peck, Phelps, Porter, Powell, Puryear, Quitman, Ricaud, Rivers, R,uffin, 
Rust, Sandidge, Savage, Seward, Shorter, Smith of Tennessee, Smith of Virginia, Smith 
of Alabama, Sneed, Stephens, Stewart, Swope, Talbott, Taylor, Tyson, Underwood, Vail, 
Walker, Warner, Wells, Wheeler, Whitney, Williams, Winslow, Wright of Mississippi, 
Wright of Tennessee, and Zolicoffer—101. 

Nays —Messrs. Allbright, Allison, Barbour, Barclay, Bennett of New York, Benson, 
Billinghurst, Bingham, Bliss, Bradshaw, Brenton, Buffington, Campbell of Pennsylvania, 
Campbell of Ohio, Chaffee, Clark of Connecticut, Clawson, Colfax, Comins, Covode, 
Cragin, Cumback, Damrell, Davis of Massachusetts, Dean, DeWitt, Dick, Dickson, Dodd, 
Dunn, Durfee, Edie, Edwards, Emrie, Flagler, Galloway, Giddings, Gilbert, Granger, 
Grow, Harlan, Holloway, Horton of New York, Howard, Hughston, Kelsey, King, Knapp, 
Knight, Knowlton, Knox, Kunkel, Leiter, Mace, Matteson, McCarty, Morgan, Morrill, 
Mott, Murray, Norton, Oliver of New York, Parker, Pelton, Pennington, Pettit, Pike, 
Pringle, Purviance, Ritchie, Robbins, Roberts, Robinson, Sabin, Sage, Sapp, Scott, 
Sherman, Simmons, Spinner, Stanton, Stranahan, Tappan, Thorington, Thurston, Todd, 
Trafton, Wade, Wakeman, Walbridge, Waldron, Washburne of Wisconsin, Washburne of 
Illinois, Washburne of Maine, Welch, Wood, Woodruff, and Woodworth—98. 


Mr. Whitney, of New-York, now that the Army bill had passed, asked 
leave to bring in a bill repealing the obnoxious laws in Kansas. Mr. Wash¬ 
burne, of Illinois, and other Republicans objected, so leave was not granted. 


ELECTORAL VOTE OF STATES. 


Maine - 

- 

- 

- 

- 8 

New Hampshire 

- 

- 

- 

- 5 

Vermont 

- 

- 

- 

- 5 

Massachusetts - 

- 

- 

- 

- 13 

Rhode Island 

- 

- 

- 

- 4 

Connecticut - 

- 

- 

- 

- 6 

New York - - 

- 

- 

- 

. 35 

Pennsylvania 

- 

- 

- 

- 27 

New Jersey - 

- 

- 

- 

- 7 

Delaware 

- 

- 

- 

- 3 

Maryland - - 

- 

- 

- 

- 8 

Virginia 

- 

- 

- 

- 15 

North Carolina - 

- 

- 

- 

- 10 

South Carolina - 

- 

- 

- 

- 8 

Georgia - 





Florida - 

- 

- 

- 

- 3 


Alabama - - - - 

- - - 9 

Mississippi - - - - 


Louisiana - - * - 


Arkansas - - - • 

- - - 4 

Texas. 


Missouri - - - - 

- - - 9 

Kentucky - - - - 

- - - 12 

Tennessee - - - - 

- - - 12 

Iowa - - - - - 

- - - 4 

Ulinoise - - - - 

- - - 11 

Indiana - - - - - 

- - - 13 

Ohio. 

- - - 23 

Michigan - - - - 

- - - 6 

Wisconsin - - - - 

--- 5 

California - - - - 






















VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS OF 1798, 

PRONOUNCING THE ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS TO BE UN¬ 
CONSTITUTIONAL, AND DEFINING THE RIGHTS OF THE 
STATES.—DRAWN BY MR. MADISON. 


IN THE VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES, 

Friday , Dec. 21, 1798. 

Resolved , That the General Assembly of Virginia doth une¬ 
quivocally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend 
the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of 
this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic; 
and that they will support the Government of the United 
States in all measures warranted by the former. 

That this A ssembly most solemnly declares a warm attach¬ 
ment to the Union of the States, to maintain which it pledges 
its powers; and, that for this end, it is their duty to watch 
over and oppose every infraction of those principles which con¬ 
stitute the only basis of that Union , because a faithful observance 
of them can alone secure its existence and the public happiness. 

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, 
THAT IT VIEWS THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AS 
RESULTING FROM THE COMPACT TO WHICH THE STATES ARE PAR 
TIES, AS LIMITED BY THE PLAIN SENSE AND INTENTION OF THE IN¬ 
STRUMENT CONSTITUTING THAT COMPACT, AS NO FARTHER VALID 
THAN THEY ARE AUTHORIZED BY THE GRANTS ENUMERATED IN 
THAT COMPACT; AND THAT IN CASE OF A DELIBERATE, PALPABLE, 
AND DANGEROUS EXERCISE OF OTHER POWERS, NOT GRANTED BY 
THE SAID COMPACT, THE STATES, WHO ARE PARTIES THERETO, 
HAVE THE RIGHT, AND ARE IN DUTY BOUND, TO INTERPOSE, FOR 
ARRESTING THE PROGRESS OF THE EVIL, AND FOR MAINTAINING WITHIN 
THEIR RESPECTIVE LIMITS THE AUTHORITIES, RIGHTS, AND LIBER¬ 
TIES APPERTAINING TO THEM. 

That the General Assembly doth also express its deep re¬ 
gret, that a spirit has, in sundry instances, been manifested by 
the Federal Government, to enlarge its powers by forced con¬ 
structions of the constitutional charter which defines them; 

263 



254 


VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS OF 1798 . 


and, that indications have appeared of a design to expound 
certain general phrases (which, having been copied from the 
very limited grant of powers in the former articles of confed¬ 
eration, were the less liable to he misconstrued) so as to de¬ 
stroy the meaning and effect of the particular enumeration 
which necessarily explains, and limits the general phrases, 
and so as to consolidate the States by degrees into one Sov¬ 
ereignty, THE OBVIOUS TENDENCY AND INEVITABLE RESULT OF 
WHICH WOULD BE, TO TRANSFORM THE PRESENT REPUBLICAN 
SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES INTO AN ABSOLUTE, OR AT BEST, 
A MIXED MONARCHY. 

That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against 
the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in 
the two late cases of the “Alien and Sedition Acts,” passed at 
the last session of Congress; the first of which, exercises a 
power no w T here delegated to the Federal Government, and 
which, by uniting Legislative and Judicial powers to those of 
Executive, subverts the general principles of free government, 
as well as the particular organization and positive provisions 
of the Federal Constitution; and the other of which acts exer¬ 
cises, in like manner, a power not delegated by the Constitution, 
but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one 
of the amendments thereto; a power which, more than any 
other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled 
against the right of freely examining public characters and 
measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, 
which has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian 
of every other right. 

That this State having by its Convention, which ratified the 
Federal Constitution, expressly declared, that among other 
essential rights, “the liberty of conscience and the press can¬ 
not be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any au¬ 
thority of the United States,” and from its extreme anxiety to 
guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry and 
ambition, having with other States recommended an amend¬ 
ment for that purpose, which amendment was, in due time, 
annexed to the Constitution, it would mark a reproachful in¬ 
consistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were 
now shown to the most palpable violation of one of the rights, 
thus declared and secured; and to the establishment of a pre¬ 
cedent which may be fatal to the other. 

That the good people of this Commonwealth, having ever 
felt, and continuing to feel the most sincere affection for their 
brethren of the other States; the truest anxiety for establishing 


ADDRESS ACCOMPANYING THEM. 


265 


and perpetuating the union of all; and the most scrupulous 
fidelity to that Constitution, which is the pledge of mutual 
friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness ; the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions 
in the other States, in confidence, that they will concur with 
this Commonwealth, in declaring, as it does hereby declare, 
that the acts aforesaid are unconstitutional; and, that the 
necessary and proper measures will he taken by each for co¬ 
operating with this State, in maintaining unimpaired the au¬ 
thorities, rights, and liberties, reserved to the States, respec¬ 
tively, or to the people. 

That the Governor he desired to transmit a copy of the fore¬ 
going resolutions to the Executive authority of each of the 
other States, with a request, that the same may he communi¬ 
cated to the Legislature thereof; and that a copy he furnished 
to each of the Senators and Representatives representing this 
State in the Congress of the United States. 

Attest, JOHN STEWART. 

1798, December 24th. Agreed to by the Senate. 

H. BROOKE. 

A true copy from the original deposited in the office of the 
General Assembly. 

JOHN STEWART, Keeper of Rolls. 


EXTRACTS 

From the Address to the People , ivhich accompanied the fore 
going Resolutions . 

Fellow Citizens— Unwilling to shrink from our representa¬ 
tive responsibility, conscious of the purity of our motives, but 
acknowledging your right to supervise our conduct, we invite 
your serious attention to the emergency which dictated the sub¬ 
joined resolutions. Whilst we disdain to alarm you by ill- 
founded jealousies, we recommended an investigation, guided 
"by the coolness of wisdom, and a decision bottomed on firm¬ 
ness hut tempered with moderation. 

It would be perfidious in those entrusted with the guardian¬ 
ship of the State sovereignty, and acting under the solemn 
obligation of the following oath:. “I do swear, that I will sup¬ 
port the Constitution of the United States, ;; not to warn you 
of encroachments, which, though clothed with the pretext of 
necessity, or disguised by arguments of expediency, may yet 
34 



26 ft 


VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS OF 1798. 


establish precedents, which may ultimately devote a generous 
and unsuspicious people to all the consequences of usurped 
power. 

Encroachments springing from a government whose organi¬ 
zation CANNOT BE MAINTAINED WITHOUT THE CO-OPERATION OF 
the States, furnish the strongest excitements upon the State 
Legislatures to watchfulness, and impose upon them the strong¬ 
est obligation to preserve unimpaired the line of partition. 

The acquiescence of the States under infractions of the Fed¬ 
eral Compact , would either beget a speedy consolidation, by 
precipitating the State Governments into impotency and con¬ 
tempt ; or prepare the way for a revolution, by a repetition of 
these infractions, until the people are aroused to appear in the 
majesty of their strength. It is to avoid these calamities, that 
we exhibit to the people the momentous question, whether the 
Constitution of the United States shall yield to a construction, 
which defies every restraint, and overwhelms the best hopes 
of republicanism. 

Exhortations to disregard domestic usurpations, until foreign 
danger shall have passed, is an artifice which may be forever 
used; because the possessors of power, who are the advocates 
for its extension, can ever create national embarrassments, to 
be successively employed to soothe the people into sleep, whilst 
that power is swelling, silently, secretly, and fatally. Of the 
same character are insinuations of a foreign influence, which 
seize upon a laudable enthusiasm against danger from abroad, 
and distort it by an unnatural application, so as to blind your 
eyes against danger at home. 0 

The Sedition act. presents a scene, which was never expected 
by the early friends of the Constitution. It was then admitted 
that the State sovereignties were only diminished , by powers 
specifically enumerated , or necessary to carry the specified 
powers into effect. Now Federal authority is deduced from 
implication , and from the existence of State law it is inferred, 
that Congress possess a similar power of legislation; whence 
Congress will be endowed with a power of legislation, in all 
cases whatsoever, and the States will be stript of every right 
reserved, by the concurrent claims of a paramount Legislature. 

The Sedition act is the offspring of these tremendous pre¬ 
tensions, which inflict a death wound on the sovereignty of the 
States. 

For the honor of American understanding, we will not be¬ 
lieve, that the people have been allured into the adoption of the 
Constitution, by an affectation of defining powers, whilst the 


ADDRESS ACCOMPANYING THEM. 


267 


preamble would admit a construction which, would erect the 
will of Congress into a power paramount in all cases, and there¬ 
fore limited in none. On the contrary, it is evident that the 
objects for which the Constitution was formed were deemed 
attainable only by a particular enumeration and specification 
of each power granted to the Federal Government; reserving 
all others to the people, or to the States. And yet it is in vain 
we search for any specified power, embracing the right of leg¬ 
islation against the freedom of the press. 

Had the States been despoiled of their sovereignty by the 
generality of the preamble, and had the Federal Government 
been endowed with whatever they should judge to be instru¬ 
mental towards union, justice, tranquillity, common defence, 
general welfare, and the preservation of liberty, nothing could 
have been more frivolous than an enumeration of powers. 

All the preceding arguments rising from a deficiency of 
constitutional power in Congress, apply to the Alien act, and 
this act is liable to other objections peculiar to itself. If a sus¬ 
picion that aliens are dangerous, constitute the justification of 
that power exercised over them by Congress, then a similar 
suspicion will justify the exercise of a similar power over na¬ 
tives. Because there is nothing in the Constitution distin¬ 
guishing between the power of a State to permit the residence 
of natives and aliens. It is, therefore, a right originally pos¬ 
sessed, and never surrendered by the respective States, and 
which is rendered dear and valuable to Virginia, because it is 
assailed through the bosom of the Constitution, and because 
her peculiar situation renders the easy admission of artizans 
and laborers an interest of vast importance. 

But this bill contains other features, still more alarming 
and dangerous. It dispenses with the trial by jury; it violates 
the judicial system; it confounds legislative, executive, and 
judicial powers; it punishes without trial; and it bestows 
upon the President despotic power over a numerous class of 
men. Are such measures consistent with our constitutional 
principles ? And will an accumulation of power so extensive, 
in the hands of the Executive, over aliens, secure to natives 
the blessings of republican liberty ? 

If measures can mould Governments, and if an uncontrolled 
power of construction is surrendered to those who. administer 
them, their progress may be easily foreseen and their end easily 
foretold. A lover of monarchy, who opens the treasures of 
corruption, by distributing emolument among devoted parti- 
zans, may at the same time be approaching his object, and 


268 


VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS OP 1798. 


deluding the people with, professions of republicanism. He 
may confound monarchy and republicanism, by the art of defi¬ 
nition. He may varnish over the dexterity which ambition 
never fails to display, with the pliancy of language, the seduc¬ 
tion of expediency, or the prejudices of the times. And he 
may come at length to avow, that so extensive a territory as 
that of the United States can only be governed by the energies 
of monarchy; that it cannot be defended, except by standing 
armies; and that it cannot be united, except by consolidation. 

Measures have already been adopted, which may lead to these 
consequences. They consist: 

In fiscal systems and arrangements, which keep an host of 
commercial and* wealthy individuals, embodied and obedient, 
to the mandates of the treasury. 

In armies and navies, which will, on the one hand, enlist the 
tendency of man to pay homage to his fellow creature who can 
feed or honor him; and on the other, employ the principle of 
fear, by punishing imaginary insurrections, under the pretext 
of preventive justice. 

In swarms of officers, civil and military, who can inculcate 
political tenets tending to consolidation and monarchy, both 
by indulgences and severities; and can act as spies over the 
free exercise of human reason. 

In restraining the freedom of the press, and investing the 
Executive with legislative, executive, and judicial powers, over 
a numerous body of men. 

And, that we may shorten the catalogue, in establishing by 
successive precedents such a mode of construing the Constitution 
as will rapidly remove every restraint upon Federal power. 

Let history be consulted; let the man of experience reflect; 
nay, let the artificers of monarchy be asked, what farther 
materials they can need for bpilding up their favorite system? 

These are solemn, but painful truths; and yet we recommend 
it to you, not to forget the possibility of danger from without, 
although danger threatens us from within. Usurpation is 
indeed dreadful, but against foreign invasion, if that should 
happen, let us rise with hearts and hands*united, and repel 
the attack, with the zeal of freemen, who will strengthen their 
title to examine and correct domestic measures, by having 
defended their country against foreign aggression. 

Pledged as we are, fellow-citizens, to these sacred engage¬ 
ments, we yet humbly and fervently implore the Almighty 
Disposer of Events, to avert from our land war and usurpation, 
the scourges of mankind; to permit our fields to be cultivated 


OBJECTIONS TO THEM. 


269 


in peace; to instil into nations the love of friendly intercourse; 
to suffer our youth to he educated in virtue; and to preserve 
our morality from the pollution, invariably incident to habits 
of war; to prevent the laborer and husbandman from being 
harassed by taxes and imposts; to remove from ambition the 
means of disturbing the Commonwealth; to annihilate all 
pretexts for power afforded by war; to maintain the Constitu¬ 
tion; and, to bless our nation with tranquillity, under whose 
benign influence, we may reach the summit of happiness and 
glory, to which we are destined by NATURE and NATURE’S 
GOD. 

Attest, JOHN STEWART, C. H. D. 

1799, January 23d. Agreed to by the Senate. 

H. BROOKE, C. S. 

A true copy from the original deposited in the office of the 
General Assembly. JOHN STEWART, Keeper of Rolls. 


ANSWERS OF THE SEVERAL STATE LEGISLATURES, 
STATE OF DELAWARE. 

In the House of Representatives , February 1,1799.— Resolved, 
By the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of 
Delaware, in General Assembly met, that they consider the 
resolutions from the State of Virginia as a very unjustifiable 
interference with the General Government and constituted 
authorities of the United States, and of dangerous tendency, 
and therefore not fit subject for the further consideration of 
the General Assembly. 

ISAAC DAVIS, Speaker of the Senate. 

STEPHEN LEWIS, Speaker of the H. of Rep’s. 

Test— John Fisher, C. S.— John Caldwell, C. H. R. 

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE 
PLANTATIONS. 

In General Assembly, February , A. D. 1799.—Certain Resolu¬ 
tions of the Legislature of Virginia, passed on 21st of December 
last being communicated to this Assembly, 

1. Resolved, That in the opinion of this Legislature, the 
second section of third article of the Constitution of the United 
States in these words, to wit: The Judicial power shall extend 



270 


VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS OF 1798 . 


to all cases arising under the laws of the United States , vests in 
the Federal Courts, exclusively, and in the Supreme Court of 
the United States, ultimately the authority of deciding on the 
constitutionality of any act or law of the Congress of the 
United States. 

2. Resolved , That for any State legislature to assume that 
authority, would he, 

1st. Blending together legislative and judicial powers. 

2d. Hazarding an interruption of the peace of the States by 
civil discord, in case of a diversity of opinions among the State 
legislatures; each State having, in that case, no resort for 
vindicating its own opinions, hut to the strength of its own arm. 

3d. Submitting most important questions of law to less com¬ 
petent tribunals: and 

4th. An infraction of the Constitution of the United States, 
expressed in plain terms. 

3. Resolved , That although for the above reasons, this legis¬ 
lature, in their public capacity, do not feel themselves author¬ 
ized to consider and decide on the constitutionality of the 
Sedition and Alien laws (so called:) yet they are called upon 
by the exigency of this occasion, to declare, that in their private 
opinions, these laws are within the powers delegated to Con¬ 
gress, and promotive of the welfare of the United States. 

4. Resolved , That the Governor communicate these resolu¬ 
tions to the supreme executive of the State of Virginia, and at 
the same time express to him that this legislature cannot 
contemplate, without extreme concern and regret, the many 
evil and fatal consequences which may flow from the very 
unwarrantable resolutions aforesaid, of the legislature of Vir¬ 
ginia, passed on the twenty-first day of December last. 

A true copy, SAMUEL EDDY, Sec’y. 

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

In Senate, February 9,1799.—The Legislature of Massachu¬ 
setts having taken into serious consideration the resolutions 
of the State of Virginia, passed the 21st day of December last, 
and communicated by his excellency the Governor, relative to 
certain supposed infractions of the Constitution of the United 
States, by the government thereof, and being convinced that 
the Federal Constitution is calculated to promote the happiness, 
prosperity and safety of the people of these United States, and 
to maintain that union of the several States, so essential to the 


OBJECTIONS TO THEM. 


271 


welfare of the whole; and being hound by solemn oath to 
support and defend that Constitution, feel it unnecessary to 
make any professions of their attachment to it, or of their firm 
determination to support it against every aggression, foreign 
or domestic. 

But they deem it their duty solemnly to declare, that while 
they hold sacred the principle, that consent of the people is 
the only pure source of just and legitimate power, they cannot 
admit the right of the State legislatures to denounce the admin¬ 
istration of that government to which the people themselves, 
by a solemn compact, have exclusively committed their national 
concerns: That, although a liberal and enlightened vigilance 
among the people is always to be cherished, yet an unreason¬ 
able jealousy of the men of their choice, and a recurrence to 
measures of extremity, upon groundless or trivial pretexts, have 
a strong tendency to destroy all rational liberty at home, and 
to deprive the United States of the most essential advantages 
in their relations abroad: That this legislature are persuaded, 
that the decision of all cases in law and equity, arising under 
the Constitution of the United States, and the construction of 
all laws made in pursuance thereof, are exclusively vested by 
the people in the judicial courts of the United States. 

That the people in that solemn compact, which is declared 
to be the supreme law of the land, have not constituted the 
State legislatures the judges of the acts or measures of the 
Federal Government, but have confided to them the power of 
proposing such amendments of the Constitution, as shall appear 
to them necessary to the interests, or conformable to the wishes 
of the people whom they represent. 

That by this construction of the Constitution, an amicable 
and dispassionate remedy is pointed out for any evil which 
experience may prove to exist, and the peace and prosperity 
of the United States may be preserved without interruption. 

But, should the respectable State of Virginia persist in the 
assumption of the right to declare the acts of the National 
Government unconstitutional, and should she oppose success¬ 
fully her force and will to those of the nation, the Constitution 
would be reduced to a mere cypher, to the form and pageantry 
of authority, without the energy of power. Every act of the 
Federal Government which thwarted the views or checked the 
ambitious projects of a particular State, or of its leading and 
influential members, would be the object of opposition and of 
remonstrance; while the people, convulsed and confused by 
the conflict between two hostile jurisdictions, enjoying the pro- 


272 


VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS QE 1798 . 


tection of neither, would be wearied into a submission to some 
hold leader, who would establish himself on the ruins of both. 

The legislature of Massachusetts, although they do not them¬ 
selves claim the right, nor admit the authority of any of the 
State governments, to decide upon the constitutionality of the 
acts of the Federal Government, still, least their silence should 
he construed into disapprobation, or at best into a doubt of the 
constitutionality of the acts referred to by the State of Virginia; 
and, as the General Assembly of Virginia has called for an 
expression of their sentiments, do explicitly declare, that they 
consider the acts of Congress, commonly called “the Alien and 
Sedition acts/' not only constitutional, but expedient and neces¬ 
sary: That the former act respects a description of persons 
whose rights were not particularly contemplated in the Consti¬ 
tution of the United States, who are entitled only to a tempo¬ 
rary protection, while they yield a temporary allegiance; a 
protection which ought to be withdrawn whenever they become 
“dangerous to the public safety,” or are found guilty of “trea¬ 
sonable machination” against the government: That Congress 
having been especially entrusted by the people with the general 
defence of the nation, had not only the right, but were bound 
to protect it against internal as well as external foes. That 
the United States, at the time of passing the act concerning 
aliens , were threatened with actual invasion, had been driven 
by the unjust and ambitious conduct of the French Government 
into warlike preparations, expensive and burthensome, and had 
then, within the bosom of the country, thousands of aliens, 
who, we doubt not, were ready to co-operate in any external 
attack. 

It cannot be seriously believed, that the United States should 
have waited till the poignard had in fact been plunged. The 
removal of aliens is the usual preliminary of hostility, and is 
justified by the invariable usages of nations. Actual hostility 
had unhappily long been experienced, and a formal declaration 
of it the government had reason daily to expect. The law, 
therefore, was just and salutary, and no officer could with so 
much propriety be entrusted with the execution of it, as the 
one in whom the Constitution has reposed the executive power 
of the United States. 

The Sedition act, so called, is, in the opinion of this legisla¬ 
ture, equally defensible. The General Assembly of Virginia, 
in their resolve under consideration, observe, that when that 
State by its convention, ratified the Federal Constitution, it 
expressly declared, “That, among other essential rights, the 


OBJECTIONS TO THEM. 


273 


liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, 
abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United 
States,” and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights 
from every possible attack of sophistry or ambition, with other 
States, recommend an amendment for that purpose: which 
amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution; 
but they did not surely expect that the proceedings of their 
State convention were to explain the amendment adopted by 
the Union. The words of that amendment, on this subject, 
are, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of 
speech or of the press. ” 

The act complained of is no abridgment of the freedom of 
either. The genuine liberty of speech and the press, is the 
liberty to utter and publish the truth; but the constitutional 
right of the citizen to utter and publish the truth, is not to be 
confounded with the licentiousness in speaking and writing, 
that is only employed in propagating falsehood and slander. 
This freedom of the press has been explicitly secured by most, 
if not all the State constitutions; and of this provision there 
has been generally but one construction among enlightened 
men; that it is a security for the rational use and not the abuse 
of the press; of which the courts of law, the juries and people 
will judge; this right is not infringed, but confirmed and 
established by the late act of Congress. 

By the Constitution, the legislative, executive and judicial 
departments of government are ordained and established; and 
general enumerated powers vested in them respectively, inclu¬ 
ding those which are prohibited to the several States. Certain 
powers are granted in general terms by the people to their 
General Government, for the purposes of their safety and pro¬ 
tection. The, government is not only empowered, but it is 
made their duty to repel invasions and suppress insurrections; 
to guarantee to the several States a republican form of govern¬ 
ment; to protect each State against invasion, and, when applied 
to, against domestic violence; to hear and decide all cases in 
law and equity, arising under the Constitution, and under any 
treaty or law made in pursuance thereof; and all cases of 
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and relating to the law 
of nations. Whenever, therefore, it becomes necessary to effect 
any of the objects designated, it is perfectly consonant to all 
just rules of construction, to infer, that the usual means and 
powers necessary to the attainment of that object, are also 
granted: But the Constitution has left no occasion to resort to 
implication for these powers; it has made an express grant of 
35 


274 


VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS OP 1798 . 


them, in the 8th section of the first article, which ordains, 
“That Congress shall have power to make all laws which 
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the 
foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by the Constitu¬ 
tion in the government of the United States or in any depart¬ 
ment or officer thereof.” 

This Constitution has established a Supreme Court of the 
United States, but has made no provision for its protection, 
even against such improper conduct in its presence, as might 
disturb its proceedings, unless expressed in the section before 
recited. But as no statute has been passed on this subject, 
this protection is, and has been for nine years past, uniformly 
found in the application of the principles and usages of the 
common law. The same protection may unquestionably be 
afforded by a statute passed in virtue of the before mentioned 
section, as necessary and proper, for carrying into execution 
the powers vested in that department. A construction of the 
different parts of the Constitution, perfectly just and fair, will, 
on analogous principles, extend protection and security against 
the offences in question, to the other departments of govern¬ 
ment, in discharge of their respective trusts. 

The President of the United States is bound by his oath “to 
preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” and it is ex¬ 
press! y made his duty “to take care that the laws be faith¬ 
fully executed;'” but this would be impracticable by any created 
being, if there could be no legal restraint of those scandalous 
misrepresentations of his measures and motives, which directly 
tend to rob him of the public confidence. And equally impo¬ 
tent would be every other public officer, if thus left to the 
mercy of the seditious. 

It is holden to be a truth most clear, that the important 
trusts before enumerated cannot be discharged by the govern¬ 
ment to which they are committed, without the power to 
restrain seditious practices and unlawful combinations against 
itself, and to protect the officers thereof from abusive misrep¬ 
resentations. Had the Constitution withheld this power, it 
would have made the government responsible for the effects 
without any control over the causes which naturally produce 
them, and would have essentially failed of answering the great 
ends for which the people of the United States declare, in the 
first clause of that instrument, that they establish the same, 
viz: “To form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure 
domestic tranquillity, provide for the comaion defence, promote 


OBJECTIONS TO THEM. 


275 


die general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to our¬ 
selves and posterity.” 

Seditious practices and unlawful combinations against the 
Federal Government, or any officer thereof, in the performance 
of his duty, as well as licentiousness of speech and of the press, 
were punishable on the principles of common law in the courts 
of the United States, before the act in question was passed. 
This act then is an amelioration of that law in favor of the 
party accused, as it mitigates the punishment which that 
authorizes, and admits of any investigation of public men and 
measures which is regulated by truth. It is not intended to 
protect men in office, only as they are agents of the people. 
Its object is to afford legal security to public offices and trusts 
created for the safety and happiness of the people, and therefore 
the security derived from it is for the benefit of the people, 
and is their right. 

This construction of the Constitution and of the existing 
law of the land, as well as the act complained of, the legisla¬ 
ture of Massachusetts most deliberately and firmly believe 
results from a just and full view of the several parts of the 
Constitution : and they consider that act to be wise and neces¬ 
sary, as an audacious and unprincipled spirit of falsehood and 
abuse had been too long unremittingly exerted for the purpose 
of perverting public opinion, and threatened to undermine and 
destroy the whole fabric of government. 

The legislature further declare, that in the foregoing senti¬ 
ments they have expressed the general opinion of their constitu¬ 
ents, who have not only acquiesced without complaint in those 
particular measures of the Federal Government, but have given 
their explicit approbation by re-electing those men who voted 
for the adoption of them. Nor is it apprehended, that the 
citizens of this State will be accused of supineness or of an 
indifference to their constitutional rights; for, while on the 
one hand, they regard with due vigilance the conduct of the 
government; on the other, their freedom, safety and happiness 
require, that they should defend that government and its con¬ 
stitutional measures against the open or insidious attacks of 
any foe, whether foreign or domestic. 

And, lastly, that the legislature of Massachusetts feel a strong 
conviction, that the several United States are connected by a 
common interest which ought to render their union indissolu¬ 
ble, and that this State will always co-operate with its confede- 


276 


VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS OF 1798 . 


rate States in rendering that union productive of mutual secu¬ 
rity, freedom and happiness. 

Sent down for concurrence. 

SAMUEL PHILIPS, President 

In the House of Representatives , Feb. 13, 1799, 

Read and concurred. 

EDWARD H. ROBBINS, Speaker. 

A true copy. Attest. JOHN AVERY, Secretary. 

STATE OF NEW YORK. 

In Senate, March 5,1799.—Whereas, the people of the United 
States have established for themselves a free and independent 
national government: And whereas it is essential to the exist¬ 
ence of every government, that it have authority to defend and 
preserve its constitutional powers inviolate, inasmuch as every 
infringement thereof tends to its subversion. And whereas 
the judicial power extends expressly to all cases of law and 
equity arising under the Constitution and the laws of the 
United States whereby the interference of the legislatures of 
the particular States in those cases is manifestly excluded. 
And, whereas, our peace, prosperity and happiness, eminently 
depend on the preservation of the Union, in order to which, a 
reasonable confidence in the constituted authorities and chosen 
representatives of the people is indispensable. And, whereas, 
every measure calculated to weaken *that confidence has a 
tendency to destroy the usefulness of our public functionaries, 
and to excite jealousies equally hostile to rational liberty, and 
the principles of a good republican government. And, where¬ 
as, the Senate not perceiving that the rights of the particular 
States have been violated, nor any unconstitutional powers 
assumed by the G-eneral Government, cannot forbear to express 
the anxiety and regret with which they observe the inflamma¬ 
tory and pernicious sentiments and doctrines which are con¬ 
tained in the resolutions of the legislatures of Virginia and 
Kentucky-—sentiments and doctrines, no less repugnant to the 
Constitution of the United States, and the principles of their 
union, than destructive to the Federal Grovernment, and unjust 
to those whom the people have elected to administer it: where¬ 
fore, Resolved\ That while the Senate feel themselves constrain¬ 
ed to bear unequivocal testimony against such sentiments and 
doctrines, they deem it a duty no less indispensable, explicitly 
to declare their incompetency, as a branch of the legislature 
of this State, to supervise the acts of the General Government. 


OBJECTIONS TO THEM. 


m 


Resolved, That his excellency, the Governor, be, and he is 
hereby requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolution 
to the executives of the States of Virginia and Kentucky, to 
the end that the same may be communicated to the legislatures 
thereof. 

A true copy. ABM. B. BAUCKER, Clerk 

STATE OF CONNECTICUT. 

At a General Assembly of the State of Connecticut, holden at 
Hartford, in the said State, on the second Thursday of May, 
Anno Domini, 1799, his excellency the Governor having com¬ 
municated to this assembly sundry resolutions of the Legisla¬ 
ture of Virginia adopted in December, 1798, which relate to 
the measures of the General Government, and the said resolu¬ 
tions having been considered, it is 

Resolved, That this assembly views with deep regret, and 
explicitly disavows, the principles contained in the aforesaid 
resolutions ; and particularly the opposition to the “ Alien and 
Sedition acts”—acts which the constitution authorised: which 
the exigency of the country rendered necessary : which the 
constituted authorities have enacted, and which merit the en¬ 
tire approbation of this assembly. They, therefore, decidedly 
refuse to concur with the Legislature of Virginia, in promoting 
any of the objects attempted in the aforesaid resolutions. 

And it is further resolved, That his excellency the Governor 
be requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolution to 
the Governor of Virginia, that it may be communicated to the 
Legislature of that State. 

Passed in the House of Representatives unanimously. 

Attest, JOHN 0. SMITH, Clerk 

Concurred , unanimously , in the Upper House . 

Teste, SAM. WYLLYS, SecWy. 

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. 

In the House of Representatives , June 14, 1799.—The com¬ 
mittee, to take into consideration the resolutions of the general 
assembly of Virginia, dated December 21st, 1798; also certain 
resolutions of the Legislature of Kentucky* of the 10th of 
November, 1798, report as follows: 

The Legislature of New Hampshire having taken into con¬ 
sideration certain resolutions of the general assembly of Vir¬ 
ginia, dated December 21, 1798; also certain resolutions of the 
Legislature of Kentucky, of the 10th of November, 1798, 


278 


VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS OE 1798. 


.Resolved, That, the Legislature of New Hampshire unequivo¬ 
cally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the 
Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this 
State, against every aggression, either foreign or domestic, and 
that they will support the Government of the United States ic 
all measures warranted by the former. 

That the State Legislatures are not the proper tribunals to 
determine the constitutionality of the laws of the General Gov¬ 
ernment—that the duty of such decision is properly and ex¬ 
clusively confided to the judicial department. 

That if the Legislature of New Hampshire, for mere specu¬ 
lative purposes, were to express an opinion on the acts of the 
Genera] Government, commonly called “ the Alien and Sedi¬ 
tion bills,” that opinion would unreservedly be, that those acts 
are constitutional, and, in the present critical situation of our 
country, highly expedient. 

That the constitutionality and expediency of the acts afore¬ 
said have been very ably advocated and clearly demonstrated 
by many citizens of the United States, more especially by the 
minority of the General Assembly of Virginia. The Legisla¬ 
ture of New Hampshire, therefore, deem it unnecessary, by 
any train of arguments, to attempt further illustration of the 
propositions, the truth of which, it is confidently believed, at 
this day, is very generally seen and acknowledged. 

Which report being read and considered, was unanimously 
received and accepted, one hundred and thirty-seven members 
being present. 

Sent up for concurrence. JOHN PRENTICE, Speaker. 

In Senate, same day, read and concurred in unanimously. 

AMOS SHEPARD, President. 

Approved, June 15th, 1799. 

J. T. GILMAN, Governor. 

A true copy. Attest, JOSEPH PEARSON, decretory. 
STATE OF VERMONT. 

In the House of Representatives , October 30 th, A. D., 1799. 
The House proceeded to take under their consideration the re¬ 
solutions of the General Assembly of Virginia, relative to cer¬ 
tain measures of the General Government, transmitted to the 
Legislature of this State, for their consideration : Whereupon, 

Resolved, That the General Assembly of the State of Ver¬ 
mont do highly disapprove of the resolutions of the General 
Assembly of the State of Virginia, as being unconstitutional in 


KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS OP 1798 AND 1799. 279 

their nature, and dangerous in their tendency. It belongs not 
to State Legislatures to decide on the constitutionality of laws 
made by the General Government; this power being exclusively 
vested in the judiciary courts of the tJnion: That his excellency 
the Governor be requested to transmit a copy of this resolution 
to the executive of Virginia, to be communicated to the General 
Assembly of that State: And that the same be sent to the 
Governor and Council for their concurrence. 

SAMUEL C. CRAFTS, Clerk. 

In Council , October 30, 1799. Read and concurred in unani¬ 
mously. RICHARD WHITNEY, Secretary. 


KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS OF 1798 AND 1799. 

[The original draught prepared by Thomas Jefferson.] 

The following Resolutions passed the House of Representatives 
of Kentucky , Nov. 10 th, 1798. On the passage of the first 
Resolution , one dissentient / 2 d, 3 d, 4 th, 5 th, 6 th, 7 th, 8 th, two 
dissentients; 9 th, three dissentients. 

I. Resolved , That the several States composing the United 
States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited 
submission to their General Government; but that by compact 
under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, 
and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Govern¬ 
ment for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain 
definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary 
mass of right to their own self-government; and, that whenso¬ 
ever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its 
acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this 
compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party; 
that this Government, created by this compact, was not made 
the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers dele¬ 
gated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and 
not the Constitution, the measure of its powers ; but, that as in 
all other Oases of compact, among parties having no common 
judge, EACH PARTY HAS AN EQUAL RIGHT TO JUDGE 
FOR ITSELF, AS WELL OF INFRACTIONS AS OF THE 
MODE AND MEASURE OF REDRESS. 

II. Resolved , That the Constitution of the United States hav¬ 
ing delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counter¬ 
feiting the securities and current coin of the United States, 
piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences 



280 


KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS OF 1798 AND 1799. 


against the laws of nations, and no other crimes whatever; and 
it being true, as a general principle, and one of the amendments 
to the Constitution having also declared, “that the powers not 
Relegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor pro¬ 
hibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respec¬ 
tively, or to the people,” therefore, also, the same act of Con¬ 
gress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and entitled, “An 
act in addition to the act entitled an act for the punishment 
of certain crimes against the United Statesas also, the act 
passed by them on the 27th day of June, 1798, entitled, “An act 
to punish frauds committed on the Bank of the United States,” 
(and all other their acts which assume to create, define, or 
punish crimes other than those enumerated in the Constitu¬ 
tion) are altogether void and of no force , and that the power 
to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and 
of right appertains solely and exclusively to the respective 
States, each within its own territory. 

III. Resolved, That it is true, as a general principle, and is 
also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Con¬ 
stitution, that “the powers not delegated to the United States 
hv the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are re¬ 
served to the States respectively or to the people;” and, that 
no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or 
freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the 
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful 
powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were re¬ 
served to the States or to the people; that thus was manifested 
their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging 
bow far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be 
abridged without lessoning their useful freedom, and how far 
those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should 
be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed; and thus also 
they guarded against all abridgment by the United States, of 
the freedom of religious principles and exercises, and retained 
to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this, stated 
by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had 
already protected them from all human restraint or interfer¬ 
ence : and, that, in addition to this general principle and ex¬ 
press declaration, another and more special provision has been 
made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which ex¬ 
pressly declares, that “ Congress shall make no laws respecting 
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 
thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” 
thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same 


KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS OF 1798 AND 1799. 281 

words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press, in¬ 
somuch, that whatever violates either, throws down the sanc¬ 
tuary which covers the others; and that libels, falsehood, and 
defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are with¬ 
held from the cognizance of Federal tribunals. That therefore 
the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th 
of July, 1798, entitled, “An act in addition to the act entitled 
an act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United 
States/’ which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not 
law, hut is altogether void and of no force. 

IV. Resolved , That alien friends are under the jurisdiction 
and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that 
no power over them has been delegated to the United States, 
nor prohibited to the individual States distinct from their 
power over citizens; and it being true, as a general prin¬ 
ciple, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having 
also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United 
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are 
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” the act 
of the Congress of the United States, passed the 22d day of June, 
1798, entitled, “An act concerning aliens,” which assumes 
power over alien friends not delegated by the Constitution, is 
not law, but is altogether void and of no force. 

V. Resolved , That in addition to the general principle as 
well as the express declaration, that powers not delegated are 
reserved, another and more special provision inferred in the 
Constitution, from abundant caution has declared, “that the 
migration or importation of such persons as any of the States 
now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be pro¬ 
hibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808.” That this 
Commonwealth does admit the migration of alien friends de¬ 
scribed as the subject of the said act concerning aliens; that a 
provision against prohibiting their migration, is a provision 
against all acts equivalent thereto, or it would be nugatory; 
that to remove them when migrated is equivalent to a prohibi¬ 
tion of their migration, and is, therefore, contrary to the said 
provision of the Constitution, and void. 

VI. Resolved , That the imprisonment of a person under the 
protection of the laws of this Commonwealth on his failure to 
obey the simple order of the President to depart out of the 
United States, as is undertaken by the said act, entitled, “An 
act concerning aliens,” is contrary to the Constitution, one 
amendment in which has provided, that “no person shall be 
deprived of liberty without due process of law, and, that 

36 


2.82 KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS OF 1798 AND 1799. 

another having provided, “that in all criminal prosecutions, 
the accused shall enjoy the right to a public trial by an impar¬ 
tial jury, to be informed as to the nature and cause of the 
accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to 
have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, 
and to have assistance of counsel for his defence/’ the same 
act undertaking to authorize the President to remove a person 
out of the United States who is under the protection of the 
law, on his own suspicion, without jury, without public trial, 
without confrontation of the witnesses against him, without 
having witnesses in his favor, without defence, without counsel, 
is contrary to these provisions also of the Constitution, is 
therefore not law, but utterly void and of no force. 

That transferring the power of judging any person who is 
under the protection of the laws, from the courts to the Fresh 
dent of the United States, as is undertaken by the same act 
concerning aliens, is against the article of the Constitution 
which provides, that, “the judicial power of the United States 
shall be vested in the courts, the judges of which shall hold 
their office during good behavior/’ and that the said act is 
void for that reason also; and it is further to be noted that 
this transfer of judiciary power is to that magistrate of the 
General Government who already possesses all the executive, 
and a qualified negative in all the legislative powers. 

YII. Resolved, That the construction applied by the General 
Government (as is evident by sundry of their proceedings) to 
those parts of the Constitution of the United States which 
delegate to Congress power to lay and collect taxes, duties, 
imposts, excises; to pay the debts, and.provide for the common 
defence, and general welfare of the United States, and to make 
all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into 
execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the govern¬ 
ment of the United States, or any department thereof, goes to 
the destruction of all the limits prescribed to their power by 
the Constitution: That words meant by that instrument to be 
subsiduary only to the execution of the limited powers, ought 
not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, 
nor a part so to be taken as to destroy the whole residue of the 
instrument: That the proceedings of the General Government 
under color of those articles, will be a fit and necessary subject 
for revisal and correction at a time of greater tranquillity, 
while those specified in the preceding resolutions call for im¬ 
mediate redress, 

VIII. Resolved , That the preceding resolutions be transmit- 


KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS OF 1798 AND 1799. 283 

ted to the Senators and Representatives in Congress from this 
Commonwealth, who are enjoined to present the same to their 
respective houses, and to use their best endeavors to procure at 
the next session of Congress a repeal of the aforesaid uncon¬ 
stitutional and obnoxious acts. 

IX. Resolved lastly , That the Governor of this Common¬ 
wealth he, and is hereby authorized and requested to commu¬ 
nicate the preceding resolutions to the legislatures of the several 
States, to assure them that this Commonwealth considers union 
for special national purposes, and particularly for those speci¬ 
fied in their late federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, 
happiness and prosperity of all the States—that faithful to that 
compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which 
it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is 
sincerely anxious for its preservation; that it does also believe, 
that to take from the States all the powers of self-government, 
and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, 
without regard to the special delegations aiid reservations sol¬ 
emnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happi¬ 
ness, or prosperity of these States; And that, therefore, this 
Commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, 
to submit to 1 undelegated a J nd consequently unlimited pothers in 
no mem, or body of men on earth: that if the acts before speci¬ 
fied should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that 
the General' Government may place any act they think proper 
on the list of crimes and punish it themselves, whether enu¬ 
merated or not enumerated "by the Constitution as cognizable 
by them; that they may transfer its cognizance to the Presi¬ 
dent or any other person, vflio may himself be the accuser, 
counsel, judge, and jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, 
his order the sentence, his officer the executioner, and his 
breast the sole record of the transaction ; that a very numerous 
and valuable description of the inhabitants of these States, 
being by this precedent reduced as outlaws to the absolute 
dominion of one man and the barriers of the Constitution thus 
swept from us all, no rampart now remains against the pas¬ 
sions and the power of a majority of Congress, to protect from 
a like exportation or other grievous punishment the minority 
of the same body, the legislatures, judges, governors, and coun¬ 
sellors of the States, nor their other peaceable inhabitants who 
may venture to reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties 
of the States and people, or who, for other causes, good or bad, 
may be obnoxious to the view or marked by the suspicions of 
the President, or to be thought dangerous to his or their elec- 


284 


KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS OF 1798 AND 1799. 


tions or other interests, public or personal; that the friendless 
alien has been selected as the safest subject of a first experi¬ 
ment; but the citizen will soon follow, or rather has already 
followed; for, already has a sedition act marked him as a prey: 
That these and successive acts of the same character, unless 
arrested on the threshold , may tend to drive these States into 
revolution and blood, and will furnish new calumnies against 
republican governments, and new pretexts for those who wish 
it to be believed, that man cannot be governed but by a rod 
of iron; that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confi¬ 
dence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety 
of our rights; that confidence is every where the parent of 
despotism; free government is found in jealousy and not in 
confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes 
limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged 
to trust with power; that our Constitution has accordingly 
fixed the limits to which, and no farther, our confidence may 
go; and let the honest advocate of confidence read the Alien 
and Sedition acts, and say if the Constitution has not been wise 
in fixing limits to the government it created, and whether we 
should be wise in destroying those limits? Let him say what 
the government is, if it be not a tyranny, which the men of 
our choice have conferred on the President, and the President 
of our choice has assented to and accepted over the friendly 
strangers, to whom the mild spirit of our country and its laws 
had pledged hospitality and protection; that the men of our 
choice have more respected the bare suspicions of the President 
than the solid rights of innocence, the claims of justification, 
the sacred force of truth, and the forms and substance of law 
and justice. In questions of power, then, let no more be said 
of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the 
chains of the Constitution. That this Commonwealth does 
therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their senti¬ 
ments on the acts concerning aliens, and for the punishment 
of certain crimes herein before specified, plainly declaring 
whether these acts are or are not authorized by the federal 
compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced 
as to prove their attachment to limited government, whether gene¬ 
ral or particular , and that the rights and liberties of their co- 
States loill be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked on a 
common bottom with their own: But they will concur with this 
Commonwealth in considering the said acts as so palpably against 
the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration, that 
the compact is not meant to be the measwre of the powers of the 


KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS OF 1798 AND 1799. 285 

General Government, but that it will 'proceed in the exercise over 
these States of all powers whatsoever. That they will view this 
as seizing the rights of the States and consolidating them in the 
hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind 
the States (not merely in cases made federal) but in all cases 
whatsoever,' by laws made, not with their consent, but by others 
against their consent; that this would be to surrender the form 
oj government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its 
powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that 
the co-States recurring to their natural rights in cases not made 
federal, will concur in declaring these void and of no force, and 
will each unite with this Commonwealth in requesting their repeal 
at the next session of Congress. 

EDMUND BULLOCK, S. H. R. 
JOHN CAMPBELL, S. & P. T. 

Passed the House of Representatives, Nov. 10, 1798. 

Attest, THOS. TODD, C. H. R. 

In SENATE, Nov. 13, 1789—Unanimouslv concurred in. 

Attest, B. THURSTON, C. S. 

Approved, November 19th, 1798. 

JAMES GARRARD, Governor of Kentucky. 

By the Governor, 

HARRY TOULMIN, Secretary of State. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Thursday, Xov. 14, 1799. 

The House, according to the standing order of the day, re¬ 
solved itself into a Committee of the whole House, on the state 
of the Commonwealth, Mr. Desha in the chair; and, after some 
time spent therein, the Speaker resumed the chair, and Mr. 
Desha reported, that the Committee had taken under consider¬ 
ation sundry resolutions passed by several State Legislatures, on 
the subject of the Alien and Sedition Laws, and had come to a 
resolution thereupon, which he delivered in at the Clerk’s table, 
where it was read and unanimously agreed to by the House, as 
follows: 

The representatives of the good people of this Commonwealth, 
in General Assembly convened, having maturely considered 
the answers of sundry States in the Union, to their resolutions 
passed the last session, respecting certain unconstitutional laws 
of Congress, commonly called the Alien and Sedition Laws, 
would be faithless, indeed, to themselves and to those they re¬ 
present, were they silently to acquiesce in the principles and 


286 KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS OF 1798 AND 1799. 

doctrines attempted to be maintained in all those answers, that 
of Virginia only excepted. To again enter the field of argu¬ 
ment, and attempt more fully or forcibly to expose the uncon¬ 
stitutionality of those obnoxious laws, would, it is apprehended, 
be as unnecessary as unavailing. We cannot, however, but 
lament, that, in the discussion of those interesting subjects, by 
sundry of the Legislatures of our sister States, unfounded sug¬ 
gestions, and uncandid insinuations, derogatory to the true 
character and principles of this Commonwealth, have been sub¬ 
stituted in place of fair reasoning and sound argument. Our 
opinions of these alarming measures of the General Govern¬ 
ment, together with our reasons for those opinions, were detailed 
with decencjr, and with temper, and submitted to the discussion 
and judgment of our fellow-citizens throughout the Union. 
Whether the like decency and temper have been observed in 
the answers of most of those States, who have denied or at¬ 
tempted to obviate the great truths contained in those resolu¬ 
tions, we have now only to submit to a candid world. Faith¬ 
ful to the true principles of the Federal Union, unconscious 
of any designs to disturb the harmony of that Union, and anx 
ious only to escape the fangs of despotism, the good people o' 
this Commonwealth are regardless of censure or calumniation. 
Least, however, the silence of this Commonwealth should be 
construed into an acquiescence in the doctrines and principles 
advanced and attempted to be maintained by the said answers, 
or least those of our fellow-citizens throughout the Union who 
so widely differ from us on those important subjects, should be 
deluded by the expectation, that we shall be deterred from 
what we conceive our duty, or shrink from the principles con¬ 
tained in those resolutions—therefore, 

Resolved , That this CBmmonwealth considers the Federal 
Union, upon the terms and for the purposes specified in the 
late compact, as conducive to the liberty and happiness of the 
several States : That it does now unequivocajly declare its at¬ 
tachment to the Union, and to that compact, agreeably to its 
obvious and real intention, and will be among the last to seek 
its dissolution: That if those who administer the General 
Government be permitted, to transgress the limits fixed by that 
compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power 
therein contained, an annihilation of the State Governments, 
and the creation upon their ruins of a General Consolidated 
Government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the 
PRINCIPLE AND CONSTRUCTION CONTENDED FOR BY SUNDRY OF THE 
8TATE LEGISLATURES, THAT THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT IS THE EXCLU- 


KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS OF 1798 AND 1799. 


287 


SITE JUDGE OF THE EXTENT OF THE POWERS DELEGATED TO IT, STOP 
NOTHING SHORT OF DESPOTISM— SINCE THE DISCRETION OF THOSE 
WHO ADMINISTER THE GOVERNMENT, AND NOT THE CONSTITU¬ 
TION, would be the measure of their powers : That the seve¬ 
ral States who formed that instrument being sovereign and 
independent have the unquestionable right to judge of the in¬ 
fraction; and, THAT A NULLIFICATION BY THOSE SOV¬ 
EREIGNTIES, OF ALL UNAUTHORIZED ACTS DONE 
UNDER COLOR OF THAT INSTRUMENT IS THE RIGHT¬ 
FUL REMEDY: That this Commonwealth does, under the 
most deliberate reconsideration, declare, that the said Alien 
and Sedition Laws are, in their opinion, palpable violations of 
the said Constitution; and, however cheerful it may be dis¬ 
posed to surrender its opinion to a majority of its sister States, 
in matters of ordinary or doubtful policy, yet, in no momentous 
regulations like the present, which so vitally wound the best 
rights of the citizen, it would consider a silent acquiescence as 
highly criminal: That although this Commonwealth, as a 
party to the Federal compact, will bow to the laws of the 
Union, yet, it does at the same time declare, that it will not 
now, or ever hereafter, cease to oppose in a constitutional man¬ 
ner every attempt, at what quarter soever offered, to violate 
that compact. And, finally, in order that no pretext or argu¬ 
ments may be drawn from a supposed acquiescence, on the 
part of this Commonwealth, in the constitutionality of those 
laws, and be thereby used as precedents for similar future vio¬ 
lations of the Federal compact—this Commonwealth does now 
enter against them its SOLEMN PROTEST. 

Extract, &c. Attest, THOS. TODD, C. H. R. 

In SENATE, Nov. 22, 1799—Read and concurred in. 

Attest, B. THURSTON, C. S. 


Ck 80; ) \ :>n V*r; •; ,r. j.; 7 1 


> .T ' 170,. 1 ■" : 

, ... ' . 7tr ; -m B 0' f" ; <» ! » i ; ; ■" 

1 'i: 1 .mji: i ■ »kih • • • •: • '• ’ : . • : 

. ?>: ■: ; of! ii ■ • of. >0 0>. f ![fM-iii .r ••••• 0 tarf# 

,/ , . , r y r, cnoit H ■ 0if ! ■ »*mm 

' ■ , i ' ' ' ! ’*■'{ 


IT T.r VjL H el: ill t ,1 ,Tij 


ra fk 1 f' \rp . - 1 " ! ( 1 ' i + A 


. Vi. ,1 






* . 

APPENDIX. 


ORDINANCE OF 1 7 8 7. 

CESSION FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA. 

Whereas the General Assembly of Virginia, at their session, 
commencing on the 20th day of October, 1783, passed an act to 
authorize their delegates in Congress to convey to the United 
States in Congress assembled, all the right of that Common¬ 
wealth to the territory northwestward of the river Ohio: and 
whereas the delegates of the said Commonwealth have pre¬ 
sented to Congress the form of a deed proposed to he executed 
pursuant to the said act, in the words following : 

To all who shall see these presents, we, Thomas Jefferson, 
.Samuel Hardy, Arthur Lee, and James Monroe, the under¬ 
written delegates for the Commonwealth of Virginia, in the 
Congress of the United States of America, send greeting : 

Whereas the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of 
Virginia, at their sessions, begun on the 20th day of October, 
1783, passed an act, entitled, “An act to authorize the dele¬ 
gates of this State in Congress to convey to the United States 
in Congress assembled, all the right of this Commonwealth to 
the territory northwestward of the river Ohio,” in these words 
following, to wit: 

“ Whereas the Congress of the United States did, by their 
act of the sixth day of September, in the year one thousand 
seven hundred and eighty, recommend to the several States in 
the Union, having claims to waste and unappropriated lands 
in the western country, a liberal cession to the United States, 
of a portion of their respective claims, for the common benefit 
of the Union: and whereas this Commonwealth did, on the 
second day of January, in the year one thousand seven hundred 
and eighty-one, yield to the Congress of the United States, for 
the benefit of the said States, all right, title, and claim, which 
37 289 



290 


APPENDIX. 


* 

the said Commonwealth had to the territory northwest of the 
river Ohio, subject to the conditions annexed to the said act of 
cession. And whereas the United States in Congress assem¬ 
bled have, by their act of the thirteenth of September last, 
stipulated the terms on which they agree to acce’pt the cession 
of this State, should the Legislature approve thereof, which 
terms, although they do not come fully up to the propositions 
of this Commonwealth, are conceived, on the whole, to ap¬ 
proach so nearly to them, as to induce this State to accept 
thereof, in full confidence, that Congress will, in justice to this 
State, for the liberal cession she hath made, earnestly press 
upon the other States claiming large tracts of waste and un¬ 
cultivated territory, the propriety of making cessions equally 
liberal, for the common benefit and support of the Union. Be 
it enacted by the General Assembly, That it shall and may be 
lawful for the delegates of this State to the Congress of the 
United States, or such of them as shall be assembled in Con¬ 
gress, and the said delegates, or such of them so assembled, 
are hereby fully authorized and empowered, for and on behalf 
of thisState, by proper deeds or instrument in writing, undei 
their hands and seals, to convey, transfer, assign, and mak< 
over, unto the United States in Congress assembled, for thu 
benefit of the said States, all right, title, and claim, as well ot 
soil as jurisdiction, which this Commonwealth hath to the ter¬ 
ritory or tract of country within the limits of the Virginia 
charter, situate, lying, and being, to the northwest of the river 
Ohio, subject to the terms and conditions contained in the be¬ 
fore recited act of Congress of the thirteenth day of September 
last; that is to say, upon condition that the territory so ceded 
shall be laid out and formed into States, containing a suitable 
extent of territory, not less than one hundred, nor more than 
one hundred and fifty miles square, or as near thereto as cir¬ 
cumstances' will admit: and that the States so formed shall be 
distinct republican States, and admitted members of the Fede¬ 
ral Union, having the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and 
independence, as the other States. 

That the necessary and reasonable expenses incurred; by this 
State, in subduing any British posts, or in maintaining forts 
and garrisons within, and for the defence, or in acquiring any 
part of, the territory so ceded or relinquished, shall be fully 
reimbursed by the United’ States: and that one commissioner 
shall be appointed by Congress, one by this Commonwealth, 
and another by those two commissioners, who, or a majority 
of them, shall be authorized and empowered to adjust and 


ORDINANCE OE 1787. 


291 


liquidate the account of the necessary and reasonable expenses 
incurred by this State, which they shall judge to be comprised 
within the intent and meaning of the act of Congress, of the 
tenth of October, one thousand seven hundred and eighty, 
respecting such expenses. That the French and Canadian 
inhabitants, and other settlers of the Kaskaskies, St. Vincents, 
and the neighboring villages, who have professed themselves 
citizens of Virginia, shall have their possessions and titles 
confirmed to them, and be protected in the enjoyment of their 
rights and liberties. That a quantity not exceeding one hun¬ 
dred and fifty thousand acres of land, promised by this State, 
shall be allowed and granted to the then colonel, now general 
George Rogers Clarke, and to the officers and soldiers of his 
regiment, who marched with him when the post of Kaskaskies 
and St. Vincents were reduced, and to the officers and soldiers 
that have been since incorporated into the said regiment, to be 
laid off in one tract, the length of which not to exceed double 
the breadth, in such place, on the northwest side of the Ohio, 
as a majority of the officers shall choose, and to be afterwards 
divided among the said officers and soldiers in due proportion, 
according to the laws of Virginia. That in case the quantity 
of good land on the southeast side of the Ohio, upon the waters 
of Cumberland river, and between the Green river and Ten¬ 
nessee river, which have been reserved by law for the Virginia 
troops, upon continental establishment, should, from the North 
Carolina line bearing in further upon the Cumberland lands 
than was expected, prove insufficient for their legal bounties, 
the deficiency should be made up to the said troops, in good 
lands, to be laid off between the rivers Scioto and Little Miami, 
on the northwest side of the river Ohio, in such proportions as 
have been engaged to them by the laws of Virginia. That all 
the lands within the territory so ceded to the United States, 
and not reserved for, or appropriated to, any of the before 
mentioned purposes, or disposed of in bounties to the officers 
and soldiers of the American army, shall be considered as a 
common fund for the use and benefit of such of the United 
States as have become, or shall become, members of the con¬ 
federation or federal alliance of the said States, Virginia inclu¬ 
sive, according to their usual respective proportions in the 
general charge and expenditure, and shall be faithfully and 
bona fide disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use or 
purpose whatsoever. Provided, that the trust hereby reposed 
in the delegates of this State shall not be executed unless three 
of them at least are present in Congress. 


292 


APPENDIX. 


And whereas the said General Assembly, hy their resolution 
of June sixth, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, 
had constituted and appointed us, the said Thomas Jefferson, 
Samuel Hardy, Arthur Lee, and James Monroe, delegates to 
represent the said Commonwealth in Congress for one year, 
from the first Monday in November then next following, which 
resolution remains in full force: Now, therefore, know ye, that 
we, the said Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Hardy, Arthur Lee, 
and James Monroe, hy virtue of the power and authority 
committed to us by the act of the said General Assembly of 
Virginia, before recited, and in the name, and for and on behalf, 
of the said Commonwealth, do, by these presents, convey, trans¬ 
fer, assign, and make over, unto the United States, in Congress 
assembled, for the benefit of the said States, Virginia inclusive, 
all right, title and claim, as well of soil as of jurisdiction, 
which the said Commonwealth hath to the territory or tract 
of country within the limits of the Virginia charter, situate, 
lying, and being, to the northwest of the river Ohio, to and 
for the uses and purposes and on the conditions of the said 
recited act. In testimony whereof, we have hereunto subscribed 
our names and affixed our seals, in Congress, the first day of 
March, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred 
and eighty-four, and of the Independence of the United States 
the eighth. 

Resolved , That the United States in Congress assembled are 
ready to receive this deed, whenever the delegates of the State 
of Virginia are ready to execute the same. 

The delegates of Virginia then proceeded and signed, sealed, 
and delivered the said deed; whereupon Congress came to the 
following resolution: 

The delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia having ex¬ 
ecuted the deed, 

Resolved , That the same be recorded and enrolled among 
the acts of the United States, in Congress assembled. 


Resolved , That it be, and it hereby is, recommended to the 
Legislature of Virginia, to take into consideration their act of 
cession: and revise the same, so far as to empower the United 
States in Congress assembled, to make such a division of the 
territory of the United States, lying northerly and westerly of 
the river Ohio, into distinct republican States, not more than five 
nor less than three, as the situation of that country and future 



ORDINANCE OP 1787. 


293 


circumstances may require; which States shall hereafter become 
members of the Federal Union, and have the same rights of 
sovereignty, freedom, and independence, as the original States: 
in conformity with the resolution of Congress of the tenth 
October, 1780.* 


According to order, the ordinance for the government of the 
territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio, was 
read a third time, and passed, as follows: 

An ordinance for the government of the territory of the United States northwest of 

the river Ohio. 

Be it ordained by the United States in Congress assembled, 
That the said territory, for the purposes of temporary govern¬ 
ment, be one district; subject, however, to be divided into two 
districts, as future circumstances may, in the opinion of Con¬ 
gress, make it expedient* 

Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the estates 
both of resident and non-resident proprietors in the said terri¬ 
tory, dying intestate, shall descend to, and be distributed 
among their children, and the descendants of a deceased child, 
in equal parts; the descendants of a deceased child or grand¬ 
child to take the share of their deceased parent in equal parts 
among them: and where there shall be no children or descendants, 
then in equal parts to the next of kin, in equal degree; and 
among collaterals, the children of a deceased brother or sister 
of the intestate shall have, in equal parts among them, their 
deceased parents' share; and there shall, in no case, be a dis¬ 
tinction between kindred of the whole and half-blood; saving 
in all cases to the widow of the intestate her third part of the 

* Resolved , That the unappropriated lands that may be ceded or relinquished to 
the United States, by any particular State, pursuant to the recommendation of Con¬ 
gress, of the sixth day of September last, shall be disposed of for the common benefit 
of the United States, and be settled and formed into distinct republican States, which 
shall become members of the Federal Union, and have the same rights of sovereignty, 
freedom, and independence, as the other States: that each State which shall be so 
formed shall contain a suitable extent of territory, not less than one hundred, nor 
more than one hundred and fifty miles square, or as near thereto as circumstances 
will admit: that the necessary and reasonable expenses which any particular State 
shall have incurred, since the commencement of the present war, in subduing any 
British posts, or in maintaining forts or garrisons within, and for the defence, or in 
acquiring any part of, the territory that may be ceded or relinquished to the United 
States, shall be reimbursed: 

That the said lands shall be granted or settled at such times and under such regu¬ 
lations as shall hereafter be agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled, or 
any nine or more of them .—Journals of Congrcss } October 10, 1180. 



294 


APPENDIX. 


real estate for life, and one-third part of the personal estate; 
and this law relative to descents and dower shall remain in 
full force until altered by the Legislature of the district.. And 
until the governor and judges shall adopt laws as hereinafter 
mentioned, estates in* the said territory may he devised or be¬ 
queathed by wills in writing, signed and sealed by him or her 
in whom the estate may be, (being of full age,) and attested by 
three witnesses; and real estates may be conveyed by lease and 
release, or bargain and sale, signed, sealed, and delivered, by 
the person, being of full age, in whom the estate may be, and 
attested by two witnesses, provided such wills be duly proved, 
and such conveyances be acknowledged, or the execution there¬ 
of duly proved, and be recorded within one year after proper 
magistrates, courts, and registers, shall be appointed for that 
purpose; and personal property may be transferred by delive¬ 
ry; saving, however, to the French and Canadian inhabitants* 
and other settlers of the Kaskaskies, St. Vincents, and the 
neighboring villages, who have heretofore professed themselves 
citizens of Virginia, their laws and customs now in force among 
them, relative to the descent and conveyance of property. 

Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That there shall be 
appointed, from time to time, by Congress, a governor, whose 
commission shall continue in force for the term of three years, 
unless sooner revoked by Congress: he shall reside in the dis¬ 
trict, and have a freehold estate therein, in one thousand acres 
of land, while in the exercise of his office. 

There shall be appointed, from time to time, by Congress, a 
secretary, whose commission shall continue in force for four 
years, unless sooner revoked; he shall reside in the district, 
and have a freehold estate therein, in five hundred acres of land, 
while in the exercise of his office; it shall be his duty to keep 
and preserve the acts and laws passed by the Legislature, and 
the public records of the district, and the proceedings of the 
governor in his executive department; and transmit authentic 
copies of such acts and proceedings, every six months, to the 
secretary of Congress: There shall also be appointed a court, 
to consist of three judges, any two of whom to form a court, 
who shall have a common law jurisdiction, and reside in the 
district, and have each therein a freehold estate, in five hun¬ 
dred acres of land, while in the exercise of their offices; and 
their commissions shall continue in force during good behavior. 

The governor and judges, or a majority of them, shall adopt 
and publish in the district such laws of the original States, 
criminal and civil, as may be necessary, and best suited to the 


ORDINANCE OP 1787 


295 


circumstances of the district, and report them to Congress, 
from time to time; which laws shall he in force in the district 
until the organization of the G-eneral Assembly therein, unless 
disapproved of by Congress; hut afterwards the Legislature 
shall have authority to alter them as they shall think fit. 

The Governor for the time being, shall be commander-in¬ 
chief of the militia, appoint and commission all officers in the 
same, below the rank of general officers; all general officers 
shall he appointed and commissioned by Congress. 

Previous to the organization of the General Assembly, the 
Governor shall appoint such magistrates and other civil officers, 
in each county or township, as he shall find necessary for the 
preservation of the peace and good order in the same. After 
the General Assembly shall he organized, the powers and du¬ 
ties of magistrates and other civil officers shall be regulated and 
defined by the said Assembly; hut all magistrates and other 
civil officers, not herein otherwise directed, shall, during the 
continuance of this temporary Government, be appointed by 
the Governor. 

For the prevention of crimes and injuries, the laws to be 
adopted or made shall have force in all parts of the district; 
and for the execution of process, criminal and civil, the Gov¬ 
ernor shall make proper divisions thereof; and he shall pro¬ 
ceed from time to time, as circumstances may require, to lay 
out the parts of the district in which the Indian titles shall have 
been extinguished, into counties and townships, subject, how¬ 
ever, to such alterations as may thereafter be made by the 
Legislature. 

So soon as there shall be five thousand free male inhabitants, 
of full age, in the district, upon giving proof thereof to the 
Governor, they shall receive authority, with time and place, to 
elect representatives from their counties or townships, to repre¬ 
sent them in the General Assembly; provided that, for every 
five hundred free male inhabitants, there shall be one repre¬ 
sentative, and so on, progressively, with the number of free 
male inhabitants, shall the right of representation increase, 
until the number of representatives shall amount to twenty- 
five ; after which the number and proportion of representatives 
shall be regulated by the Legislature; provided, that no per¬ 
son be eligible or qualified to act as a representative unless he 
shall have been a citizen of one of the United States three 
years, and be a resident in the district, or unless he shall have 
resided in the district three years; and in either case, shall 
likewise hold in his own right, in fee simple, two hundred acres 


296 


APPENDIX. 


of land witliin the same; provided also, that a freehold in fifty 
acres of land in the district, having been a citizen of one of 
the States, and being resident in the district, or the like free¬ 
hold and two years’ residence in the district, shall be necessary 
to qualify a man as an elector of a representative. 

The representatives thus elected shall serve for the term of 
two years; and in case of the death of a representative, or re¬ 
moval from office, the Governor shall issue a writ to the county 
or township, for which he was a member, to elect another in 
his stead, to serve for the residue 6f the te#m. 

The General Assembly, or Legislature, shall consist of the 
Governor, Legislative Council, and a House of Representatives. 
The Legislative Council shall consist of five members, to con¬ 
tinue in office five years, unless sooner removed by Congress; 
any three of whom to be a quorum: and the members of the 
Council shall be nominated and appointed in the following 
manner, to wut: As soon as representatives shall be elected, 
the Governor shall appoint a time and place for them to meet 
together, and when met, they shall nominate ten persons, resi¬ 
dents in the district, and each possessed of a freehold in five 
hundred acres of land, and return their names to Congress; 
five of whom Congress shall appoint and commission to serve 
as aforesaid: and whenever a vacancy shall happen in the 
Council, by death or removal from office, the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives shall nominate two persons, qualified as aforesaid, 
for each vacancy, and return their names to Congress; one of 
whom Congress shall appoint and commission for the residue 
of the term : And every five years, four months at least before 
the expiration of the time of service of the members of the 
Council, the said House shall nominate ten persons, qualified 
as aforesaid, and return their names to Congress; five of whom 
Congress shall appoint and commission to serve as members 
of the Council five years, unless sooner removed. And the 
Governor, Legislative Council, and House of Representatives, 
shall have authority to make laws, in all cases, for the good 
government of the district, not repugnant to the principles and 
articles in this ordinance established and declared. And all 
bills, having passed by a majority in the House, and by a ma¬ 
jority in the Council, shall be referred to the Governor for his 
assent; but no bill or legislative act whatever shall be of any 
force without his assent. The Governor shall have power to 
convene, prorogue, and dissolve the General Assembly, when 
in his opinion it shall be expedient. 

The Governor, Judges, Legislative Council, Secretary, and 


ORDINANCE OF 1787. 


297 


such other officers as Congress shall appoint in the district, 
shall take an oath or affirmation of fidelity, and of office; the 
Governor before the President of Congress, and all other officers 
before the Governor. As soon as a Legislature shall be formed 
in the district, the Council and House assembled, in one room, 
shall have authority, by joint ballot, to elect a delegate to Con¬ 
gress, who shall have a seat in Congress, with a "right of de¬ 
bating, but not of voting during this temporary Government. 
. And for extending the fundamental principles of civil and re¬ 
ligious liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, 
their laws and constitutions, are erected; to fix and establish 
those principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and 
governments, which forever hereafter shall be formed in the 
said territory; to provide, also, for the establishment of States, 
and permanent government therein, and for their admission to 
a share in the Federal Councils on an equal footing with the 
original States, at as early periods as may be consistent with 
the general interest: 

It is hereby ordained and declared, by the authority afore¬ 
said, That the following articles shall be considered as articles 
of compact, between the original States and the people and 
States in the said territory, and for ever remain unalterable, 
unless by common consent, to wit: 

Art. 1. No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and 
orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode 
of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory. 

Art. 2. The inhabitants of the said territory shall always 
be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, and of 
the trial by jury; of a proportionate representation of the peo¬ 
ple in the legislature, and of judicial proceedings according to 
the course of the common law. All persons shall be bailable, 
unless for capital offences, where the proof shall be evident, or 
the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate: and no 
cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted. No man shall 
be deprived of his liberty or property^ but by the judgment of 
his peers, or the law of the land; and should the public exi¬ 
gencies make it necessary, for the common preservation, to take 
any person’s property, or to demand his particular services, full 
compensation shall be made for the same. And, in the just 
preservation of rights and property, it is understood and de¬ 
clared, that no law ought ever to be made, or have force in the 
said territory, that shall, in any manner whatever, interfere 
with, or affect, private contracts or engagements, bona fide, and 
without fraud, previously formed. 

38 


298 


APPENDIX. 


Apt. 3. Keligion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary 
to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and 
the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The ut¬ 
most good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; 
their lands and property shall never be taken from them with¬ 
out their consent; and in their property, rights, and. liberty, 
they never shall be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and 
lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in jus¬ 
tice and humanity shall, from time to time, be made, for pre¬ 
venting wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace 
and friendship with them. 

Art. 4. The said territory, and the States which may be 
formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this confederacy 
of the United States of America, subject to the articles of con¬ 
federation, and to such alterations therein as shall be constitu¬ 
tionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of the United 
States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto. The inhab¬ 
itants and settlers in the said territory shall be subject to pay 
a part of the federal debts, contracted or to be contracted, and 
a proportional part of the expenses of government, to be ap¬ 
portioned on them by Congress, according to the same common 
rule and measure by which apportionments thereof shall be 
made on the other States; and the taxes for paying their pro¬ 
portion shall be laid and levied by the authority aud direction 
of the Legislatures of the district or districts, or new States, 
as in the original States, within the time agreed upon by the 
United States in Congress assembled. The Legislatures of 
those districts, or new States, shall never interfere with the 
primary disposal of the soil by the United States in Congress 
assembled, nor with any regulations Congress may find neces¬ 
sary, for securing the title in such soil to the bona fide pur¬ 
chasers. No tax shall be imposed on lands the property of the 
United States; and in no case shall non-resident proprietors be 
taxed higher than residents. The navigable waters leading 
into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence, and the carrying places 
between the same, shall be common highways, and forever free, 
as well to the inhabitants of the said territory, as to the citi¬ 
zens of the United States, and those of any other States that 
may be admitted into the confederacy, without any tax, impost, 
or duty therefor. 

Art. 5. There shall be formed in the said territory, not less 
than three, nor more than five States; and the boundaries of 
the States, as soon as Virginia shall alter her act of cession, 
and consent to the same, shall become fixed and established as 


ORDINANCE OP 1787. 


299 


follows, to wit: the western State in the said territory, shall he 
bounded by the Mississippi, the Ohio, and Wabash rivers; a 
direct line drawn from the Wabash and Post Vincents, due 
north, to the territorial line between the United States and 
Canada; and by the said territorial line to the Lake of the 
Woods and Mississippi. The middle State shall be bounded 
by the said direct line, the Wabash, from Post Vincents to the 
Ohio, by the Ohio, by a direct line drawn due north from the 
mouth of the Great Miami to the said territorial line, and by 
the said territorial line. The eastern State shall be bounded 
by the last mentioned direct line, the Ohio, Pennsylvania, and 
the said territorial line: provided however, and it is further 
understood and declared, that the boundaries of these three 
States shall be subject so far to be altered, that, if Congress 
shall hereafter find it expedient, they shall have authority to 
form one or two States in that part of the said territory which 
lies north of an east and west line drawn through the southerly 
bend or extreme of Lake Michigan. And whenever any of the 
said States shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, 
such State shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress 
of the United States, on an equal footing with the original 
States, in all respects whatever; and shall be at liberty to form 
a permanent constitution and State government: provided the 
constitution and government, so to be formed, shall be republi¬ 
can, and in conformity to the principles contained in these arti¬ 
cles ; and, so far as it can be consistent with the general inter¬ 
est of the confederacy, such admission shall be allowed at an 
earlier period, and when there may be a less number of free 
inhabitants in the State than sixty thousand. 

Art. 6. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary ser¬ 
vitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment 
of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: 
provided always, that any person escaping into the same, from 
whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the 
original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and 
conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as 
aforesaid. 

Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the resolu¬ 
tions of the 23d of April, 1784,* relative to the subject of this 

* Resolved , That so much of the territory ceded or to be ceded by individual States 
to the United States, as is already purchased or shall be purchased of the Indian in¬ 
habitants, and offered for sale by Congress, shall be divided into distinct States in 
the following manner, as nearly as such cessions will admit; that is to say, by paral¬ 
lels of latitude, so that each State shall comprehend from north to south two dogrees 


300 


APPENDIX. 


ordinance, be, and the same are hereby repealed and declared 
null and void. Done, &c. 

Whereas the United States in Congress assembled did, on 
the seventh day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand 
seven hundred and eighty-six, state certain reasons, showing 
that a division of the territory which hath been ceded to the 
said United States, by this commonwealth, into States, in con¬ 
formity to the terms of cession, should the same be adhered to, 
would be attended with many inconveniences, and did recom¬ 
mend a revision of the act of cession, so far as to empower Con¬ 
gress to make such a division of the said territory into distinct 
and republican States, not more than five nor less than three 
in number, as the situation of that country and future circum¬ 
stances might require: and the said United States in Congress 
assembled have, in an ordinance for the government of the ter¬ 
ritory northwest of the river Ohio, passed on the thirteenth of 

of latitude, beginning to count from the completion of forty-five degrees north of 
the equator: and by meridians of longitude, one of which shall pass through the 
lowest point of the rapids of Ohio, and the other through the western cape of the 
mouth of the great Kanhaway; but the territory eastward of this last meridian, 
between the Ohio, lake Erie, and Pennsylvania, shall be one State, whatsoever may 
be its comprehension of latitude. That which may lie beyond the completion of the 
45th degree, between the said meridians, shall make part of the State adjoining it 
on the south; and that part of the Ohio, which is between the same meridians, 
coinciding nearly with the parallel of 39 degrees, shall be substituted so far in lieu 
of that parallel as a boundary line. 

That the settlers on any territory so purchased and offered for sale, shall, either 
on their own petition or on the order of Congress, receive authority from them, wi^h 
appointments of time and place, for their free males of full age, within the limits of 
their £tate, to meet together, for the purpose of establishing a temporary govern¬ 
ment, to adopt the constitution and laws of any one of the original States, so that 
such laws, nevertheless, shall be subject to alteration by their ordinary legislature; 
and to erect, subject to a like alteration, counties, townships, or other divisions, for 
the election of members for their legislature. 

That when any such State shall have acquired twenty thousand free inhabitants, 
on giving due proof thereof to Congress, they shall receive from them authority, 
with appointments of,time and place, to call a convention of representatives to 
establish a permanent constitution and government for themselves. Provided, that 
both the temporary and permanent governments be established on these principles 
as their basis: 

1. That they shall for ever remain a part of this confederacy of the United States 
of America. 

2. That they shall be subject to the articles of confederation in all those cases in 
which the original States shall be so subject, and to all the acts and ordinances of 
the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto. 

3. That they, in no case, shall interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by 
the United States in Congress assembled, nor with the ordinances and regulations 
which Congress may find necessary for securing the title in such soil to the bona fide 
purchasers. 

4. That they shall be subject to pay a part of the federal debts contracted, or to 
be contracted, to be apportioned on them by Congress, according to the same com¬ 
mon rule and measure by which apportionments thereof shall be made on the other 
States. 


ORDINANCE OP 1787. 


301 


July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, declared 
the following as one of the articles of compact between the ori¬ 
ginal States and the people and States in the said territory, viz: 

[Here the 5th article of compact, of the ordinance of Congress of 13th July, ITS 7, 
is recited verbatim. See ante, page 297.] 

And it is expedient that this Commonwealth do assent to the 
proposed alteration, so as to ratify and confirm the said article 
of compact between the original States and the people and 
States in the said territory. 

2. Be it, therefore, enacted, by the General Assembly, That 
the aforerecited article of compact, between the original States 
and the people and States in the territory northwest of Ohio 
river, be, and the same is hereby ratified and confirmed, any 
thing to the contrary, in the deed of cession of the said ter¬ 
ritory by this Commonwealth to the United States, notwith¬ 
standing. 

5. That no tax shall be imposed on lands the property of the United States. 

6. That their respective governments shall, be republican. 

7. That the lands of non-resident’ proprietors shall, in no case, be taxed higher 
than those of residents within any new State, before the admission thereof to a vote 
by its delegates in Congress. 

That whensoever any of the said States shall have, of free inhabitants, as many as 
shall then be in any one the least numerous of the thirteen original States, such State 
shall be admitted by its delegates into the Congress of the United States,' on an equal 
footing with the said original States; provided the consent of so many States in 
Congress is first obtained as may, at the time, be competent to such admission. And 
in order to adapt the said articles of confederation to the state of Congress when its 
numbers shall be thus increased, it shall be proposed to the legislatures of the States, 
originally parties thereto, to require the assent of two-thirds of the United States in 
Congress assembled, in all those cases wherein, by the said articles, the assent of 
nine States is now required, which, being agreed to by them, shall be binding on 
the new States. Until such admission by their delegates into Congress, any of the 
said States, after the establishment of their temporary government, shall have 
authority to keep a member in Congress, with a right of debating, but not of voting. 

That measures, not inconsistent with the principles of the confederation, and 
necessary for the preservation of peace and good order among the settlers in any of 
the said new States, until they shall assume a temporary government as aforesaid, 
may, from time to time, be taken by the United States in Congress assembled. 

That the preceding articles shall be formed into a charter of compact; shall be 
duly executed by the President of the United States in Congress assembled, under 
his hand, and the seal of the United States; shall be promulgated ; and shall stand 
as fundamental constitutions between the thirteen original States, and each of the 
several States now newly described, unalterable from and after the sale of any part 
of the territory of such State, pursuant to this resolve, but by the joint consent of 
the United States in Congress assembled, and of the particular State within which 
such alteration is proposed to be made .—Journals of Congress. 


302 


APPENDIX. 


Abstract of the Laws of Prussia of December 31, 1842, on the 
subject of Emigration and of Military Service. 

PARAGRAPH 15 .—The quality of a Prussian subject is lost: 

1st. By discharge upon the subject’s request: 

2nd. By sentence of the competent authority : 

3rd. By living ten years in a foreign country: 

4th. By marriage of a female Prussian with a foreigner. 

PARAGRAPH 16. 

The discharge has to be asked from the police authority of 
the province in which the subject’s domicil is situated, and is 
effected by a document made out by the same authority. 

PARAGRAPH 17 .—The discharge cannot be granted: 

1st. To male subjects who are between seventeen and twenty- 
five years of age, until they have got a certificate of the military 
commission of recruitment of their district, proving that their 
application for discharge is not made merely to avoid the ful¬ 
filling of their military duty in the standing army: 

2nd. To -actual soldiers belonging either to the standing' 
army or to the reserve, to officers of the militia, and to public 
functionaries, before their being discharged from service. 

3rd. To subjects having formerly served as officers in the 
standing army or the militia, or having been appointed military 
employes with the rank of officers of civil functionaries, before 
they have got the consent of their former chief. 

4th. To the persons belonging to the militia, not being offi¬ 
cers, after their having been convoked for actual service. 

PARAGRAPH 18. 

To subjects wishing to emigrate into a State of the German 
confederacy, the discharge may be refused if they cannot prove 
that the said State is willing to receive them.—(See Act of the 
German Confederation, Art. 18, No. 2, letter A.) 

PARAGRAPH 19. 

For other reasons than those specified in Paragraphs 17 and 
18, the discharge cannot be refused in time of peace. For the 
time of war special regulations will be made. 

PARAGRAPH 20. 

The document of discharge effects, at the moment of its 
delivery, the loss of the quality as Prussian subjects. 


APPENDIX. 


303 


PARAGRAPH 21. 

If there is no special exception, the discharge comprehends 
also the wife and the minor children that are still under the 
father's authority. 

PARAGRAPH 22. 

Subjects living in Foreign Countries may lose their quality 
as Prussians by a declaration of the police authority of Prussia, 
if they do not obey, within the time fixed to them, the express 
summons for returning to their country. 

PARAGRAPH 23. 

Subjects who either, 

1st. Leave our States without permission, and do not return 
within ten years, or 

2nd. Leave our States with permission, but do not return 
within ten years after the expiration of the term granted by 
the said permission, lose their quality as Prussian subjects. 

PARAGRAPH 24 .—Entering into public service in a Foreign State. 

The entering of a subject into public service in a foreign 
State is allowed only after his discharge (see paragraph 20,) 
has been granted to him. Any body who has obtained it, is 
permitted to do so without restriction. 

PARAGRAPH 25. 

A subject who, 

1st. Either takes public service in a foreign State with our 
immediate permission: 

2nd. Or is appointed in our State by a foreign Power in an 
office established with our permission, as, for instance, that of 
Consul, Commercial Agent, &c., remains in his quality as a 
Prussian. 

PARAGRAPH 26.— General Disposition. 

Subjects who emigrate without having obtained their dis¬ 
charge, or violate, by their entering, into public service in a 
foreign State, the disposition of Paragraph 24, are to be pun¬ 
ished according to the laws existing in that respect. 

Extract from the Constitution of Prussia of 1850. 

Tit: II. Rights of the Prussians. 

Art: 11. The right to emigrate cannot be restricted by the 
State, except with respect to the duty of military service. 


304 


APPENDIX. 


Extract f rom Circular to Consuls and Commercial Agents of ike 

United States , from Department of State, dated September 
18, 1854. 

Consuls and Commercial Agents, &c., are prohibited, under 
a heavy fine, by the 2d section of the Act of 28th of February, 
1803, from granting a passport or other paper, certifying that 
an alien, knowing him or her to be such, is a citizen of the 
United States, and they should he careful not to he led into a 
violation of this Act by granting a passport as an American 
citizen to an alien who may have become domiciled in the 
United States, or to a foreigner who' has merely declared his 
intention to become an American citizen. Both of these classes 
of persons, however, may he entitled to some recognition by 
this Government, and this can be afforded by merely certifying 
to the genuineness of their papers when presented for attesta¬ 
tion, provided the Consul or Commercial Agent should have 
no reasonable doubts of their authenticity. Consuls and Com¬ 
mercial Agents are instructed, in no case to grant or vise pass¬ 
ports to foreigners coming to the United States, as no such 
papers are required in this country, and to supply or vise them 
would only subject the applicants to an unnecessary expense. 

The attention of Consuls and Commercial Agents located at 
ports where there is more or less emigration to the United 
States, is particularly called to the General Begulations, No. 34, 
issued on the 26th of August last by the Treasury Department; 
and they will not omit to report any violation, which may 
come to their knowledge, of the laws of the United States regu¬ 
lating passenger ships and vessels. They will, also, not omit, 
in cases of the intended shipment of paupers and pardoned 
convicts to this country, to give timely notice of the fact, both 
to this Department and to the Collector of the Customs at the 
port to which the vessel having them on board may be bound, 
furnishing the names oF the parties, a description of their per¬ 
sons, the name of the vessel, the date of sailing, &c., in order 
that proper steps may be taken for the enforcement of such 
police regulations as may have been adopted by the several 
States upon the subject. 


FREMONT—HIS SUPPORTERS AND THEIR RECORD. 


THE OPINIONS OF OUR GREAT STATESMEN UPON THE 
- MISSOURI RESTRICTION. 


BY AN INDIANIAN. 

The Black Republican candidate for the Presidency, though a sena¬ 
tor of the United States for several months, was in his seat and parti¬ 
cipated in the proceedings of that body but twenty-one days ; yet, 
during that time, he showed himself to be a most ultra pro-slavery 
man. 

He is now the candidate of, and supported by, that class of abolition¬ 
ists who demand that wherever Congress has the power, slavery shall 
be abolished. 

When bill No. 226, “To suppress the slave trade in the District of 
Columbia,” was under consideration, Mr. Seward moved an amend¬ 
ment, “ To abolish slavery in the District of Columbia.” Chase, Hale 
and Seward voted for the amendment, and Fremont and Dayton 
against it. (Senate Journal, 1st session 31st Congress, p. 627.) 

Subsequently, when bill No. 347 was under consideration, the same 
amendment was proposed by Mr. Hale, and supported by Messrs. 
Hale, Chase and Seward, and opposed by Messrs. Fremont and 
Dayton. (Senate Journal, 1st session 31st Congress, p. 647.) 

Under the responsibility of official duty, and the obligations of his 
senatorial oath, Mr. Fremont resisted the proposition to abolish slavery 
in the District of Columbia, although he. conceded the power. Yet, he 
is now the candidate of the party with which that measure is first in 
importance. What brought about this change in his views of right and 
duty in relation to so important a measure ? Has he abandoned a high 
principle to attain a high position? Has his gaze been so intent upon 
the White House, that he would send his principles to the auction 
block, that he nfight reach the Presidency ? Let the unprejudiced mind 
answer. 

The Senate on the 14th of September, 1850, resumed the considera¬ 
tion of bill No. 226, “To suppress the slave trade in the District of 
Columbia,” the third section of which provided, that any person who 
should induce or entice a slave to run away from his master should be 
imprisoned in the penitentiary for ten years. Senator Badger, of North 
Carolina, moved to strike out the clause denouncing a penalty ol ten 
years’ imprisonment, and insert, “ For any time not exceeding five 
years.” 

Mr. Fremont voted against this amendment. (Senate Journal, 1st 
session 31st Congress, p. 632.) 

He was the only senator representing a free State who voted against 




2 


that wise and humane proposition, originating in the benevolent feelings 
of a southern senator. Jn his judgment, to persude a slave to leave 
his master was a crime of such magnitude, that nothing less than ten 
years' imprisonment in a southern penitentiary would be an adequate 
punishment; and so stern and harsh must the law be, that the court 
should be denied all discretion in imposing the penalty, nor allowed to 
take into consideration the character, age, or intelligence of the ac¬ 
cused, nor any mitigating circumstance. The amendment was pro¬ 
posed by a southern senator, an enlightened and able defendef of 
southern rights and institutions, but it was too liberal, too indulgent to 
secure the vote of Mr. Fremont, though he represented a free State. 
To satisfy his convictions of right, the man who might encourage a 
faithful slave to escape from a cruel master, must be crushed with a 
penalty more severe than is usually inflicted upon the perpetrators of 
high crimes and infamous felonies in the States. For crimes against 
the property and persons of the people, the courts and juries may, in 
most cases, reduce the imprisonment to a term of two years; but the 
misguided enthusiast, or blind fanatic, who should encourage a slave to 
flee for liberty, is denied the mercy of the court, and must suffer a fixed 
and certain penalty often years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary. So 
voted Fremont—and in giving that vote he stood alone among the sena¬ 
tors from the North. That record stands unchanged; but where stands 
the man who made it?—the man who was so ultra in his views that a 
southern measure was not sufficiently stringent—he who was so quick 
and valiant to draw his sword for the South ? Six years have passed 
since that record, but in that short period the relative position and 
strength of the sections, North and South, have greatly changed. The 
North has become powerful and defiant—whilst the South, by calling 
into action every energy, is scarcely able to maintain her constitutional 
rights, and her equality in the Union. A sectional party in the North 
seeks to seize and control the government, and this late champion of 
the South, John C. Fremont, is their candidate for the Presidency. 
He is supported by Seward, Sumner, Giddings, Chase, Wade, Hale, 
and their compeers—the acknowledged leaders and mouth-pieces of the 
Abolition party of the United States. 

John C. Fremont has made no political record since his brilliant 
senatorial career; therefore to ascertain the opinions and sentiments that 
will govern him in his administration of public affairs, if the American 
peopLe shall, by their suffrage, place him in the highest office in the gift 
of a free people, we must recur to the avowed and published opinions 
and purposes of his political associates. 

The leaders of his party have a record—a record of vituperation 
against the Democratic party, against the federal constitution, and 
against the federal Union; this record we submit to the American 
people, and ask them to decide, in November next, whether the diver¬ 
sified interests of this great country are to be subserved by commit¬ 
ting them to the management of such men. 

On the petition of John J. Woodward and others, praying that a 
plan might be devised for a dissolution of the Union , the yeas 
were, Salmon P. Chase, John P. Hale, and William H. Seward. 
(Senate Journal, 1st session 31st Congress, p. 129.) 


These men are now the acknowledged leaders of Black Republi¬ 
canism ; they are of those who profess love for the constitution and 
the Union, whilst black and horrid treason has 'possession of their 
hearts ; but when they nominated John C. Fremont, they declared to 
the world that “ the constitution n:u>t and shall be preserved.” This 
they did, only to deceive the confiding, and mislead the unwary. 
Their votes speak louder than their words. They use the language of 
patriotism and of love for the Union to secure the support of Union- 
loving men, whilst their votes, their acts, and their organization, lead 
only to a dissolution, and all the evils that must follow. They believe 
in the “higher-law” doctrine, first enunciated at a Black Republican 
(then called a Liberty) convention, held in the city of Buffalo in 1843, 
at which the following resolution was unanimously adopted, with Sal¬ 
mon P. Chase as chairman of the Committee on Resolutions: 

“ Resolved , That we hereby give it to be distinctly understood , by this nation and the world, 
that, as abolitionists, considering that the strength of our cause lie3 in its righteousness, 
and our hopes for it in our conformity to the laws of God, and our support of the rights of 
man, we owe to the sovereign Ruler of the Universe, as a proof of our allegiance to Him, in all 
our civil relations and offices , whether as friends, citizens, or as public functionaries , sworn to 
support the constitution of the United States, to regard and treat the third clause of the in¬ 
strument, whenever applied in the case of a fugitive slave, a3 utterly null and void , and conse¬ 
quently as forming no part of the constitution of the United States , whenever we are called upon , 
or sworn to support it.” 

This doctrine was reiterated in June, 1853, at 4 Ravenna, Ohio, by a 
mass meeting of Free-soilers, which was addressed by Chase, Gid- 
dings, Samuel Lewis, and Judge Spaulding, (all of whom are now 
the champions of the Fremont cause,) by the adoption of the follow¬ 
ing resolution: 

“ Resolved , That we cannot respect, nor can we confide in those lower-law doctors of divinity 
who hold human laws above the laws of God ; nor can we concur in their teachings, that 
the divine law is subject to Congressional compromises ” 

And again announced by the Hon. Charles Sumner, in 1S54, in the 
Senate of the United States. 

Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, asked, “If we repeal the fugitive- 
slave law, will Massachusetts execute the provision of the constitution 
without any law of Congress?” Will this honorable senator [Mr. 
Sumner] tell me that he will do it?” To which Mr. Sumner replied : 
“ Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?” Mr. Butler con¬ 
tinued : “ Then you would not obey the constitution. Sir, standing 
here before this tribunal, where you swore to support it, you rise and 
tell me that you regard it the office of a dog to enforce it. You stand 
in my presence as a co-equal senator, and tell me that it is a dog’s 
office to execute the constitution of the United States?” To which 
Mr. Sumner said: “ I recognise no such obligation.” 

Welcome is Mr. Sumner to his senatorial honors, acquired by 
charging that only a “dog” could recognise or execute an express 
I clause of the constitution of the United States, which, however, is in 
1 strict accordance with the Buffalo and Ravenna resolutions, and com¬ 
ports with the “higher-law” notions of the party who recently made 
Colonel Fremont their presidential candidate. 

This doctrine, which makes the private notions or prejudices of each 
individual the paramount law ol his political action, is but a practical 
development of the “higher-law” notions as applied to American poli- 



4 


tics by William H. Seward, who, in a speech delivered in the United 
States Senate in 1850, said : 

“The constitution regulates our stewardship; the constitution devotes the domain to 
Union, to justice, to defence, to welfare, and to liberty. But there is a higher law than the 
constitution , which regulates our authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble 
purposes.” 

It is scarcely necessary to say that, with such ideas in the ascendant 
in any country, no government is practical, and anarchy and confusion, 
and brute lorce, must inevitably lule the hour. Bodies of men or in¬ 
dividuals, maddened by sectional or party prejudices, will never want 
an excuse for the violation of unpalatable laws, so long as they are 
permitted to substitute the vagaries of their own distempered intellects 
as having a stronger claim to their obedience than the constitution of 
their country. 

As a further development of this idea of individual sovereignty, 
Wendell Phillips, of Massachusetts, at a Free-soil meeting in Boston, 
in May, 1849, said: 

“We confess that we intend to trample under foot the constitution of this country. Daniel 
Webster soys : ‘ You are a law-abiding people that the glory of New England is, ‘ that it is 
a law-abiding community.’ Shame on it, if this be true ; if even the religion of New England 
sinks as low as its statute-book. But 1 say we are not a law-abiding community. God be 
thanked for it.” 

But the Black Republican platform says: 

“The federal constitution, the rights of the States, and the Union of the States, must and 
shall be preserved.” 

In preservation of the “rights of the States,” Joshua R. Giddings, 
in the House of Representatives, in May, 1854, said: 

“ I look forward to the day when there shall be a servile insurrection in the South ; when 
the black man, armed with British bayonets, and commanded by British officers, shall wage a 
war of extermination against the white man ; when the master shall see his dwelling in flames, 
and his hearth-stone polluted ; and, though I may not mock at their calamity, nor laugh when 
their fear cometh, yet shall 1 hail it as the dawn of a political millenium.” 

The man who uttered this chaste sentiment contributed more to the 
nomination of Fremont than perhaps any other rrian in the convention; 
he was the master-spirit of that convention, and was no doubt the 
author of that clause in the platform which declares “the rights of the 
States must and shall be preserved.” Yes, such preservation “ as the 
wolf gives to the lamb !” 

But certainly that Black Republican party which professes so much 
love for the federal constitution and the union of the States must have 
a record in strict conformity to such professions. Let us, then, look to 
that record. Mr. Mann, of Massachusetts, in 1850, expressed his love 
for the constitution and the Union as follows: 

“ I have only to add, that, under a full sense of my responsibility to my country and my 
God, 1 deliberately say. better disunion, better a civil or a servile war, belter anything that 
God, in his Providence, shall send, than an extension of the bounds of slavery.” 

At a celebration of the 4th day of July, 1854, by citizens of Massa¬ 
chusetts, in which the Rev. (?) Theodore Parker, Wendell Phillips, and 
others, took the lead, the constitution of the United States was thrown 
into a fire, built for that purpose, and burnt in derision of the Ameri¬ 
can Union. 

Senator Wade, of Ohio, in a speech to a mass meeting of the Black 
Republicans, held in the State of Maine in 1855, according to the 
Boston Atlas, said: 



mf 

o 


“There was no freedom at the South for either white or black, and he would strive to pro- 
tect the free soi of the Nortn from the same blighting curse. There was really no Union now 
between the North a.nd the South, and he believed no two nations upon the earth entertained 
feelings of more bitter rancor towards each other than these two sections ofthe republic. The 
only salvation of the Union, therefore, was to be found in divesting; it entirely from all taint of 
slavery There was no Union xoith the South. Let us have a Union, said 'he, or let us sweep 
away this remnant which we call a Union. I go for a Union where all men are equal, or for no 
Union at all, and I go for right.” n 


This speech was vociferously applauded by the constitution-union- 
loving people of Maine. 

These disunion sentiments, and the man who uttered them, were 
endorsed by the Black Republican legislature of Ohio in 1856, by re¬ 
electing him to the Senate of the United States. The Black Republi¬ 
cans of the great State of Ohio, therefore, respond faithfully to the 
sentiment: “Let ns sweep away this remnant which we call a Union.” 

This same party, at a convention held in Boston in 1855, ‘adopted, 
by a unanimous vote, the following resolutions: 

“ 15. Resolved, That a constitution which provides for a slave representation and a clave 
oligarchy in Congress, which legalizes slave hunting and slave catching on every inch of 
American soil, and which pledges the military and naval power of the country to keep four 
millions of chattel slaves in their chains, is to be trodden under foot and p onounced accursed, 
however unexceptionable or valuable may be its other provisions. 

“ lb- -Resolved, That the onegreat issue before the country is, the dissolution of the Union, 
in comparison with which all other issues with the slave power are as dust in the balance; 
therefore, we will give ourselves to the work of annulling this ‘ covenant with death,’ as essential 
to our own innocency, and the speedy and everlasting overthrow of the slave system.” 

This same party “ loves this Union!” yet, at various meetings and 
processions in Indiana, during the month of July, 1856, flags and trans¬ 
parencies were carried with but sixteen stars; emblematic of a northern 
confederacy of the sixteen free States. The same thing has recently 
occurred in the State of Maine: 


“ Hannibal Hamlin, Lot M. Morril, and Charles W. Goddard, esq., of Danville, addressed 
a Fremont meeting at Norway on Monday, standing under an American flag, on which were 
only sixteen stars ! 

“ The disunion flag, with sixteen stars only, still continues to float across the public highway 
in this village—an emblem of sectionalism, and a disgrace to the party who placed it there.”— 
Norway Advertiser. 

“ The * Portland State of Maine ’ has hung out a Fremont and Dayton flag, on which are only 
sixteen stars. 

“ A salute of sixteen guns was fired at Portland the day Hamlin was nominated for governor. 

“ Only sixteen States were represented in the convention which nominated Fremont and 
Dayton. 

“ These are significant signs of the disunion tendencies and feelings of the Black Republicans. 
They scarcely take any pains to disguise their hostility to the Union. Let those who love their 
country and desire to perpetuate the Union ponder these things, and then do their duty .” 

Senator Sumner, of Massachusetts, in a speech delivered in Faneuil 
Hall, Boston, on the 2d November, 1855, said: 


“Not that I love the Union less, but freedom more, do I now, in pleading this great cause, 
insist that freedom, at all hazards, shall be preserved. God forbid that for the sake of the 
Union, we should sacrifice the very thing for which the Union was made.” 

Our glorious Union was formed to promote the prosperity and happi¬ 
ness of the white race, and as a condition of the Union, expressed in 
the constitution, the rights of the slave States are recognised and guar¬ 
antied. Shall it be sacrificed to a false philanthropy, a wild and fa¬ 
natical sentimentality towards the black race? You respond “yes,” 
when you, as sectional men, support John Charles Fremont. 

Wade, Sumner, and their political associates, have long and openly 
declared their disunion sentiments; they have violated their, constitu¬ 
tional obligations; they have defamed our glorious constitution; they 


6 


have traduced their country, and have plotted treason against our beloved 
Union ; they are the leaders of the black cohorts of Black Republican¬ 
ism ; whilst plotting treason, they are also plotting for the election of 
Fremont; and if successful in either, they will have accomplished their 
great first design, the disunion of these States. 

Wendell Phillips issued a pamphlet in 1850, reviewing Mr. Web¬ 
ster’s speech “ on the constitutional rights of the States,” in which is 
the following: 

“We are disunionists, not from any love of separate confederacies, or as ignorant of the 
thousand evils that spring from neighboring and quarrelsome States, but we would get rid of 
this Union.” 

This man that uttered these delectable sentiments is a leading Black 
Republican of Massachusetts and New England, and his shrieks are 
loud and long for “ free speech, free men, and Fremont.” 

The Black Republican-Know-nothing legislature of Massachusetts, 
in 1855, passed an act denominated the personal liberty bill, nullifying 
thereby an act of Congress, which, by the constitution, is a part of the 
supreme law of the land. 

This “personal liberty bill,” as has been well said, “menaces with 
disfranchisement any lawyer who appears for the claimant of the fugi¬ 
tive slave; menaces with impeachment any judge who issues a warrant 
or certificate, or holds even the office of commissioner under the federal 
law; and menaces with infamous punishment any ministerial officer or 
officer of militia who aids in its execution.” And although Governor 
Gaidner vetoed the bill because of its conflict with the constitution of 
the United States, yet this Black Republican and Know-nothing legis¬ 
lature passed it over the veto, and it became a law. 

The legislature of Ohio, composed of the same material as the legis¬ 
lature of Massachusetts, at their session in 1856, passed laws nullifying 
the same acts of Congress. 

Judge Spaulding, one of the leaders in the Black Republican con¬ 
vention from Ohio, said: 

“ In the case of the alternative being presented of the continuance of slavery or a dissolu¬ 
tion of the Union, 1 am for dissolution, and I care not how quick it comes.” 

John P. Hale addressed the convention as follows : 

“ You have assembled, not to say whether this Union shall be preserved, but to say whether 
it shall be a blessing or a scorn and hissing among the nations.” 

Senator Wilsun, on the 12th of June, 1855, in the Philadelphia 
Know-nothing convention, said: 

“ I am in favor of relieving the federal government from all connexion with, and responsi¬ 
bility for, the existence of slavery. To effect this objeci, I am in favor of the abolition of 
slavery in the District of Columbia, and the prohibition of slavery in all the Territories.” 

Mr. Wilson, by abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, 
would perpetrate an act of bad faith, highly injurious to the peace and 
quietness of the States of Virginia and Maryland, from whom the ces¬ 
sion was made to the general government. He would demand of a 
Congress, composed ol members from all the States, to denounce and 
abolish an institution recognised and protected by fifteen States of thi§ 
Union ; yet what cares he for the peace and harmony of the Union, or 
the great wrong that he would inflict upon the South, so that his morbid 
appetite should be gratified ? But the abolishment of slavery in the 


District oi Columbia,, and the prohibition of slavery in the Territories, 
Mi. Clay said, were “but so many masked batteries, concealing the 
real»and ultimate point of attack. That point of attack is the institu¬ 
tion ol slavery as it exists in the States. Their purpose is abolition— 
universal abolition—peaceably if they can, forcibly if they must.” 

Mr. Banks, the present Abolition-know-nothing Speaker of the House 
of Representatives, and who declined the nomination of the New York 
Know-nothing convention in favor of Mr. Fremont, said: 

“ I am notone of that class of men who cry for the perpetuation of the Union, though I 
am willing, in a certain state of circumstances, to let it slide.” 

Mr. Josiah Quincy, of Boston, in a speech in August, 1854, said: 

“ T he obligation incumbent upon the free States to deliver uo fugitive slaves is that burden, 
and it must he obliterated from that constitution at every hazard.” 

General James Watson Webb, a Black Republican leader, said, in 
the Philadelphia convention : 

“ Our people come together from all parts of the Union and ask us to give them a nomina 
lion which, when fairly put before the people, will unite public sentiment, and, through the 
ballot-box, will restrain and repel this pro-slavery extension and this aggression of the slave- 
ocracy. What else are they doing? They tell you that they are willing to abide by the bal¬ 
lot-box, and willing to make that the last appeal. If ive fail there, what then ? We will 
drive it back, sword in hand, and, so help me God ! believing that to be right, I am with them.* 1 
[Loud and prolonged applause.] 

Let the ballot-box fail to elect Fremont, and the cartridge-box is 
threatened against the American people. The idiosyncracies of the 
Black Republican party must prevail, or the fire and sword must fol¬ 
low. They are truly a constitution Union-loving party. 

Mr. Burlingame, in the House of Representatives, in 1S56, said: 

“ The times demand, and we must have, an anti-slavery Constitution, an anti-slavery 
Bible, and an anti-slavery God.” 

The following extract is from the “Boston Liberator,” a paper now 
warmly supporting Mr. Fremont: 

“ Justice and liberty, God and man, demand the dissolution of this slaveholding Union and 
the formation of a northern confederacy, in which slaveholders shall stand before the law 
as felons and be treated as pirates. God and humanity demand a ballot-box in which the 
slaveholders shall never cast a ballot. In this, what State so prepared to lead as the Old 
Bay State ? She has already made it a penal offence to help to execute a laio of the TJnion. I 
want to see the officers of the Stale brought into collision with those of the Union.*' 

These benevolent and patriotic sentiments meet with a hearty re¬ 
sponse from the leaders of this Union-loving-Fremont party. 

But of all the damnable sentiments that have ever met the public 
gaze were those uttered by that prince of Black Republicans, Wil¬ 
liam Lloyd Garrison, who, in a speech made in New York on the 
1st day of August, 1S55, spoke thus : 

“ The issue is this: God Almighty has made it impossible from the beginning for liberty 
and slavery to mingle together, or a union to be founded between abolitionists and slavehold¬ 
ers—between those who oppress and those who are oppressed. This Union is a lie ; tiie 
American Union is a sham, an imposture, a covenant with death, an agreement with 

HELL, AND IT IS OUR BUSINESS TO CALL FOR A DISSOLUTION. Let THAT UNION BE ACCURSED 
WHEREIN THREE MILLIONS AND A HALF OF SLAVES CAN BE DRIVEN TO UNREQUITED TOIL BY 1 HEIR 
MASTERS. 

“ I will continue to experiment no longer—it is all madness. Let the slaveholding union 
go, and slavery will go with the union down into the dust. It the church is against dis¬ 
union, and not on the side of the s ave, then I pronounce it as of the devil. > 

i( I say let us cease striking hands with thieves and adulterers, and give to the winds 
the rallying cry, ‘No union with slaveholders, socially or religiously, and ur with 
THE FLAG OF DISUNION.’ ” 


8 


This party, with these leaders and this record, ask the Americau 
people to vote for their candidate for the presidency, John C. Fremont. 
Are you prepared to endorse the doctrine that, for our civil govern¬ 
ment, there is a “ higher law” than the constitution? Are you pre¬ 
pared to say you owe no allegiance to that government which gives 
you protection in your person and property? that you “ are not a law- 
abiding people ?” Can you find 4 it in your hearts to utter that this 
Union “is accursed,” and that the great compact of your lathers is 
“a covenant with hell?” If you can deliberately do all this, then, in¬ 
deed, are you a Black Republican, and you ought to cast your vote for 
John C. Fremont. But truly might you ask, “ Is thy servant a dog, 
that he shall do this thing?” 

For two years past the opponents of the Democratic party through¬ 
out the United States have waged a cruel and relentless war upon 
foreigners and members of the Roman Catholic church. These classes 
have been proscribed—commercial rights and political equality have 
been refused them—their fitness to participate in the affairs of govern¬ 
ment has been denied. They have been driven from the ballot-boxes, 
beaten and murdered in the streets, their homes sacked, their houses 
burned, and their wives and children cruelly murdered. That was the 
work of superstition, proscription, and bigotry. And whilst the rights 
of man were thus being crushed, and human blood mule to How, 
Abolitionism and Know-nothingism were allies—brothers in the field. 
Against them was arrayed the National Democracy. True to its 
mission, that party fought for the rights of man, and the freedom of 
religion. It has defeated and scattered the oath-bound forces of Know- 
nothingism. Democrats have fought the battle, and the foreigner is 
made secure in his social and political rights and privileges; and, 
strange to tell, the Abolitionists now ask him to turn against his friends. 

His sympathies are invoked in behalf of the negro, and he is told that 
the war which they had waged for two years against him has ceased. 
Were not the legislatures of Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, 
and Connecticut, in 1855, composed almost entirely of Abolition-Know- 
nothings? Those legislatures passed laws to elevate, socially and po¬ 
litically, the negro, whilst they denied social or political equality to the 
adopted citizen. They denied their State courts to a foreigner, who 
should apply for naturalization; they hampered their law with condi¬ 
tions, so as to prevent the adopted citizen from exercising the elective 
franchise; they elevated the negro, and degraded the naturalized citi¬ 
zen; they are of the leaders of Fremont, and still shout “Down with 
the foreigners,” “Up with the negroes,” and “Americans must rule 
America.” They are still of the Abolition party, and still against the 
Democracy; they hate the adopted citizen; they trample upon the 
constitution; they accurse the Union, and sing paeans of praise and love 
to the negro. Such is the Abolition-Know-nothing party of those States, 
and such are the supporters of John C. Fremont for the Presidency. 

David Kilgore, in the Indiana Constitutional Convention in 1850, in 
speaking of our adopted citizens, said : 

“ A man, then, who has no feeling in common with us, who never felt the pulse of liberty 
till he set foot upon our soil, such a man is to enjoy the opportunity and the.right to vote 


9 


\ 


amongst us, whilst these rights are to be denied to the unfortunate black man, who has ten 
times more intelligence, and who has lived in the State of Indiana from his birth.” [See debates 
in the Convention, vol. 1, p. 253 .] 

And at the Black Republican State Convention in 1856, he said : 

No NOMINATION SHOULD BE MADE WHICH WOULD TREAD UPON THE TOES OF THE KnOW- 

nothings— neither should a nomination be made which would tread upon the toes of the Free- 
soilers—even the. most ultra anti-slavery man. ****** 

He was opposed to foreigners. They should be permitted to come to this country—to buy 
lands here—to till the soil, but they should be the horses, not the drivers. The Americans 
would hold the lines—the foreigners could draw the burdens. [This infamous sentiment was 
applauded.] The foreigner should not be allowed to make our laws. He might live under 
them and must obey them, but he should have no voice in the making of them.” 

This man is now the Know-nothing-Abolition candidate for Congress 
in the fifth Congressional district in the State of Indiana, regularly nom¬ 
inated by what they termed a “Republican Convention,” and if elected, 
he is pledged to labor in Congress for the principles of his part} 7- —the 
elevation of the negro, and the degradation of the unfortunate victims 
of European oppression, who have sought an asylum in free America. 
To this work of self-debasement the foreigner himself is asked to give his 
influence and vote. Will he give his vote to such men, and prove to 
them and the world that what his enemies have asserted is true—that 
he cannot appreciate a free government—that he is.unfit to he a freeman? 
Let the adopted citizen ponder well before he casts his vole for his 
enemies, lest they may hereafter point to this ver} T act, as evidence of 
a want of intelligence and capacity to vindicate the rights of a freeman. 

On the 19th day of June, 1856, John C. Fremont was nominated for 
the Presidency by a grand council of Know-nothings, in the city of New 
York, representing all the Know-nothings of the northern and some of 
the southern States. On the 30th day of June he accepted that nomi¬ 
nation, and in his letter of acceptance he speaks of it as an honor con¬ 
ferred upon him, and tenders his “grateful acknowledgment” to the 
members of that council, and to “ their respective constituencies,” for 
the “ distinguished expression of their confidence .” The constituencies 
represented were the Know-nothing lodges and wigwams all over the 
country, in which, for two years before, the destruction or degradation 
of foreigners was planned and plotted—in which companies of men 
were armed, organized, and sworn to attack, beat, and murder the 
foreign-boni citizen. From them Fremont accepts the nomination as 
an honor; and if he, accepts their services to secure his election, must 
he not represent their sentiments, and give himself up to their work of 
hatred and destruction? 

On the day after Fremont received this Know-nothing nomination, 
the New York Herald, a Fremont paper, made the following announce¬ 
ment : 

“ The sudden change which has taken place in the sentiments of the convention in regard to 
Mr. Fremont is attr butable to the fact, that that gentleman was waited on last night by a dele¬ 
gation from this party, with whom he had a long and earnest confabulation, extending into the 
small hours of the morning; that he then and there declared himself unreserve Ily in favor of 
the principles of the Know-nothing party, and would give them his entire and cordial adher¬ 
ence, and that he was perfectly convinced that if he did not receive the support of the American 
party throughout the Union, he had not the slightest prospect of being elected.” 

When Senate hill No. 343, making temporary provision for working 
the mines in California, was under consideration, Mr. Seward, of New 


10 


York, moved to extend to all persons “who shall have, in pursuance 
of law, declared their intention to become citizens,” the same benefits 
and privileges conferred upon citizens of the United States relative to 
working the gold mines. Mr. Fremont voted against the proposition, 
(Sen. Jour., 1st ses. 31st Cong., p. 671.) The most bitter and proscriptive 
Know-nothings have conceded that the foreigner might come to our land 
and enjoy the profits of his labor, demanding only that he be socially and 
politically degraded. But Mr. Fremont would go further: by his vote* 
in the Senate, he said, that among the thousands of adventurers in Cali¬ 
fornia the foreigner shall not mingle. Although he may have declared 
his intention to become a citizen of the United States, he shall not be 
allowed the only profitable labor in California, but shall stand by until 
his full term of five years shall have expired—the mines in the mean 
time being exhausted or wholly occupied. The labor was profitable, 
and therefore he should be excluded from it. That principle, thus 
supported by Mr. Fremont, goes further : it excludes the foreigner from 
our rich lands, where his labor would secure him a rich return in plen¬ 
tiful harvests, and says to him, social and political inferiority shall be 
your condition, and poor lands and unprofitable labor your portion in 
this land of plenty. The Know-nothing council of New York could 
well afford to nominate a man who has shown so unmistakably his 
sympathy with that order in its hostility towards the foreigner. 

James Buchanan, the candidate of the democracy, proscribes no 
man because of his religion or birth-place, but, adopting the republican 
sentiment that each man shall be judged by his own conduct, he has 
supported wise, just, and equal laws ; his political career has been a 
long and useful one; he has been tried, and proved himself an incor¬ 
ruptible patriot, qualified for all the high positions wdiich he has filled; 
he is against sectionalism, and will maintain the Union—the whole 
Union—upon the firm basis of the constitution; and, to use his own 
language, he “ will cultivate peace and friendship with all nations, be¬ 
lieving this to be our highest policy, as well as our most imperative 
duty.” With James Buchanan as the candidate of the national de¬ 
mocracy, opposed to John C. Fremont, the nominee of the sectional 
Know-nothing and Black Republican conventions, can we doubt a 
glorious triumph for the Democracy and James Buchanan, of Penn¬ 
sylvania? 

The Black Republican party allege that the great excitement, now 
prevailing to such an alarming extent throughout the country, has le¬ 
gitimately resulted from the repeal of the so-called Missouri compro¬ 
mise ; and, in their denunciation of the Kansas-Nebraska act, they ap¬ 
peal to the fathers for the justification of their action in resisting the 
passage of the bill; they invoke the names of Thomas Jefferson, 
James Madison, and James Monroe, to prove that the prohibition of 
slavery in the Territories by Congress was the settled doctrine of the 
early fathers. They would deceive you in the opinions entertained 
by those great statesmen, and would mislead you as to the cause of 
the excitement which is now almost wrecking this fair fabric. We 
quote from the fathers that they would invoke, to show that this excite¬ 
ment, properly and legitimately, is the consequence of the legislation 


11 


of 1820; that the prohibition of slavery in the territory north of 3G° 

30 w as the first fire-brand to disturb the peace of the Union ; that we 
are now realizing the almost prophetic language of that great states 
man, Thomas Jefferson, when he said he considered the Missouri 
question u as the knell of the Union,” and that u every new irritation 
would mark it deeper and deeper.” But let these great men speak 
for themselves. In reference to sectionalism and the Missouri ques¬ 
tion, Jefferson said: 

“ The question is a mere party trick. The leaders of federalism, defeated in their schemes 
of obtaining: power by rallying partisans to the principle of monarchism—a principle of per¬ 
sonal, not of local division—have changed their tact and thrown out another barrel to the 
whale. T. hey are taking advantage ot the virtuous feeling of the people to effect a division 
of parties by a geographical line ; they expect that this will insure them, on local principles, 
the majoiity they could never obtain on principles of federalism ; but they are still putting 
their shoulders to the wrong wheel ; they are wasting jeremiads on the miseries of slavery as 
if ive were advocates of it. Sincerity in their declamations should direct their efforts to the 
true point of difficulty, and invite tktir councils with ours in devising some reasonable and practi¬ 
cable plan of getting rid of it.” — Jefferson's Writings, vol 7. 

In a letter to Mr. Adams, dated January 22, 1821, be says: 

“ Our anxieties in this quarter are all concentrated in the question, What does the holy alli¬ 
ance, in and out of Congress, mean to do with it3 on the Missouri question? Arid this, by 
the way, is but the name of the case; it is only the John Doe or Richard Roe of the eject¬ 
ment. The real question, as seen in the States afflicted with this unfortunate population, is, 
Are our slaves to be presented with freedom and a dagger? For, if Congress has the power 
to regulate the conditions of the inhabitants o fthe States within the States, it will be but 
another exercise of that power to declare that all shall be free. Are we, then, to see again 
Athenian and Lacaedemonian confederacies ? To wage another Pelopponesian war to settle 
the ascendency between them? Or is this the tocsin of merely a servile war? That remains 
to be seen; but I hope not by you or me. SURELY THEY WILL PARLEY AWHILE 
AND GIVE US TIME TO GET OUT OF THE WAY. What a bedlamite is man!” 

In a letter to Lafayette, dated November 4, 1823, Mr. Jefferson said: 

“ On the eclipse of federalism with us, although not its extinction, its leaders got up the 
Missouri question, under the false front of lessening the measure of slavery, but with the 
real view of producing a geographical division of parties, which might insure them the next 
President. The people of the North went blindfold into the snare, and follov T ed their lead¬ 
ers for a while with a zeal truly moral and laudable, until they became sensible that they were 
injuring instead of eliding the real interests of the slaves; that they had been used merely as 
tools for electioneering purposes, and that trick of hypocrisy then fell as quickly as it had i 
been got up.” 

In a letter to Mr. Short, dated April 13, 1820, Mr. Jefferson says: 

“ Although I had laid down as a law to myself never to write, talk, or even think of politics, 
to know nothing of public affairs, and had therefore ceased to read newspapers, yet the Missouri 
question aroused and filled me with alarm. Theo'd schism of federal anti republican threatened 
nothing, because it existed in every State, and united them together by the fraternism of party. 

But the coincidence of a marked principle, moral and political, with a geographical line, once 
conceived, 1 feared would never more be obliterated from the mind ; that it would be recurring 
on every occasion, and renewing irritations, until it would kindle such mutual and mortal ha¬ 
tred as to render separation preferable to eternal discord. I have been among the most san¬ 
guine in believing that our Union would be of long duration. I now doubt it much, and see 
the event at no great distance, and the direct consequence of this question ; not by the line 
which has been so confidently counted on—the laws of nature control this—but by the Poto¬ 
mac, Ohio, and Missouri, or more probably the Mississippi, upwards to our northern bound¬ 
ary. My only comfortand consolation is, that I shall not live to see it ; and I envy not the 
present generation the glory of throwing away the fruits of their fathers’ sacrifices of life 
and fortune, and of rendering desperate the experiment which was to decide ultimately 
whether man is capable of seif-government. This treason against human hope will signalize 
their epoch in future history as the counterpart of the model of their predecessors.” 

“ I thank you, my dear sir, for the copy you have been so kind as to send me of the letter 
to your constituents on the Missouri question. * * * But this momentous question, Iikc a 

fire-bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell 
of the Union. It is hushed, indeed, for the moment; but this is a reprieve only, not a final 
sentence. A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once 


12 


conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated ; and every new 
irritation will mark it deeper and deeper. * * * If they would but dispassionately weigh 

the blessings they will throw away, against an abstract principle, more likely to be effected by 
union that by scission, they would pause before they could perpetrate this act of suicide on 
themselves and of treason against the hopes of the world.”— Letter to Jno. Holmes , dated Mon- 
ticello, April 22, 1820. 

“ 1 am indebted to you for your two letters of February 7th and 19th. '1 his Missouri ques¬ 
tion, by a geographical line of division, is the most portentous one I ever contemplated. * * 

* * is ready to risk the Union for any chance of restoring his party to power, and wriggling 

himself to the head of it; nor is * * *• * without his hopes, nor scrupulous as to the means 
of fulfilling them.”— Letter to Mr. Madison. 

“The banks, bankrupt law, manufactures, Spanish treaty, are nothing. These are occur¬ 
rences which, like waves in a storm, will pass under the ship ; but the Missouri question is a 
breaker on which we lose the Missouri country by revolt, and what more, God only knows. 
From ihe battle of Bunker’s Hill to the treaty of Paris, we never had so ominous a question. 
It even damps the joy with which 1 hear of your high health, and welcomes to me the want of 
it. I thank God I shall not live to witness its issue.”— Letter to John Adams, December 10, 1819. 

“The line of division lately marked out between different portions of our confederacy, is 
such as will never, I fear, be obliterated, and we are now trusting to those who are against us 
in position and principle, to fashion to their own form the minds and affections of our youth. 
If, as has been estimated, we send three hundred thousand dollars a year to the northern sem¬ 
inaries, for the instruction of our own sons, then we must have five hundred of our sons in> 
bibing opinions and principles in discord with those of their own country. This canker is 
eating on the vitals of our existence, and, if not arrested at once, will be beyond remedy.”— 
Letter to General BrecJcenridge, February 11, 1821. 

“ The Missouri question is the most portentous one which ever yet threatened our Union. 
In the gloomiest moment of the revolutionary war, I never had any apprehension equal to that 
I felt from this source.”— Letter to Mr. Monroe , March 3, 1820. 

Mr. Madison said: 

“ On one side it naturally occurs, that the right being given from the necessity of the case, 
and in suspension of the great principle of self-government, ought not to be extended further, 
nor continued longer, than the occasion might fairly require. 

“ The questions to be decided seem to be, first, whether a territorial restriction be an as¬ 
sumption of illegitimate power; or, second, a misuse of legitimate power; and if the latter 
only, when the injury threatened to the nation from an acquiescence in the misuse, or from a 
frustration of it, be the greater. 

“ On the first point there is certainly room for difference of opinion; though, for myself, 1 
must own that 1 have ihvays leaned to the belief the restriction ivas not within the true scope of 
the constitution.”—Letter to Mr. Monroe in 1820. 

“ Hearken not to the unnatural voice which tells you that the people of America, knit to¬ 
gether as they are by so many cords of affection, can no longer live together as members of 
the same family—can no longer continue the mutual guardians of their mutual happiness—can 
no longer be fellow-citizens of one great, respectable, and flourishing empire. The kindred 
blood which flows in the veins of American citizens—the mingled blood which they haveshed 
in defence of their sacred rights, consecrate their union, and excite horror at the idea of their 
becoming aliens, rivals, enemies. And if novelties are to be shunned, believe me, the most 
alarming of all novelties—the most wild of all projects—the most rash of all attempts, is that 
of rending us in pieces in order to preserve our liberties and promote our happiness .” 

[ The Federalist , p. 86. 

“ Should a state of parties arise, founded on geographical boundaries and other physical 
distinctions which happen to coincide with them, what is to control those great repulsive 
masses from awful shocks against each other ?”■— Letter to Mr. Walsh, dated November 27, 1819. 

General Harrison said : 

“ I am, and have been for many years, so much opposed to slavery, that I will never live 
in a State where it exists But I believe that the constitution has given no power to the gen¬ 
eral government to interfere in this matter, and that to have slaves or no slaves depends upon 
the people in each State or Territory alone. 

“ But besides the constitutional objections, I am persuaded that the obvious tendency of such 
interferences on the part of the States which have no slaves with the property of their fellow- 
citizens of the others, is to produce a state of discord and jealousy that will in the end prove 
fatal to the Union. I believe in no other State are such wild and dangerous sentiments enter¬ 
tained on this subject as in Ohio.”— General Harrison in a letter to President Monroe in 1821. 

In reference to sectionalism, and the nullification of the acts of Con¬ 
gress, General Jackson said: 


13 



The laws of the United States must be executed. * Those who told you that you 
might peaceably prevent them execution, deceived you; they c uld not have been deceived them¬ 
selves 1 hey know that a forcible opposition could alone prevent the execution of the laws, 
and they know that such opposition must be repelled. Their object is disunion ; but be not 
deceived by names; disunion, by armed force, is treason.”— Message of General Jackson, in 
1833, on Nullification. 

“Appeals, too, are constantly made to sectional interests, in order to influence the election of 
the Ch ef Magistrate, as if it were desired that he should favor a particular quarter of the coun¬ 
try, instead ot fulfilling the duties of his station with impartial justice to all; and the possi¬ 
ble dissolution oi ihe Union has at length become an ordinary and familiar subject of discus¬ 
sion. Has the warning voice of Washington been forgotten, or have designs already 
been formed to dissolve the Union ?” * * * * “Mutual suspicion and reproaches may 

in time create rnuiual hostility ; and artful and designing men will always be found who are 
ready to foment these fatal divisions and inflame the natural jealousies of different sections of 
the country. Ihe histoiy of the world is full of such examples, and especially the history of 

“ And no citizen who loves his country would, in any case whatever, resort to forcible re¬ 
sistance, unless he clearly saw that the time had come when a freeman should prefer deadi to 
submission.” * * * * “ Rest assured that men found busy in this work of discord are 

not worthy of your confidence, and deserve your strongest reprobation. 

[ u In the legislation of Congress, also, and in every measure of the general government, 
justice to every portion of the l nited States should be faithfully observed. iNo free govern¬ 
ment can stand without virtue in the people and a lofty spirit of patriotism ; and if the sordid 
feelings of mere selfishness shall usurp ihe place which ought to be filled by public spirit, the 
legislation of Congress will soon be converted into a scramble for personal a< d sectional ad¬ 
vantages.”— Jackson . 

“ And solemnly proclaim that the constitution and the laws are supreme, and the Union in 
dissoluble.”— Jackson’s Message, Jan 16, 1833. 

In relation to the very questions now agitating the country, the Sage 
of Ashland said.* 

“ Sir, I am not in the habit of speaking lightly of the possibility of dissolving th s happy 
Union. The Senate know that I have deprecated allusions, on ordinary occasions, to I hat dire¬ 
ful event. The country will testify that, if there be anything in the history of my public 
career worthy of recollection, it is the truth and sincerity of my ardent devotion to its lasting 
preservation. Bui we should be false in our allegiance to it if we did not discriminate between 
the imaginary and real dangers by which it may be assailed. Abolitionism should no longer 
be regarded as an imaginary danger. The abolitionists, let me suppose, succeed in their pres¬ 
ent aim of uniting the inhabitants of the free States, as one man, against the inhabitants of the 
slave States. Union on one side will beget union on the other, and this process of reciprocal 
consolidation will be attended with all the violent prejudice, embittered passions, and implacable 
animosities which ever degraded or deformed human nature. * * * One section will stand 

in menacing and hostile array against the other. The collision of opinion will be quickly fol¬ 
lowed by the clash of arms. 1 will not attempt to describe scenes which now happily lie con¬ 
cealed from our view. Abolitionists themseives would shrink back in dismay and horror at 
the contemplation of desolated fields, conflagrated cities, murdered inhabitants, and the over¬ 
throw of ttie fairest fabric of human government that ever rose to animate the hopes of civilized 
man.”— Speech of Mr. Clay in the U. S. Senate on the 1th of February, 1839. 

In the same speech Mr. CJay summed up what the abolitionists 
wanted, as loilows: 

“ And the third class are the real ultra abolitionists, who are resolved to persevere in the 
pursuit of their object at all hazards. With this class the immediate abolition of slavery in 
the District of Columbia, the prohibition of the removal of slaves from State to State, and the 
refusal to admit any new Mate comprising within its limits the institution of domestic slavery, 
are but so many means conducing to the accomplishment of the ultimate but perilous end, at 
which they avowedly and boldly aim, are but so many short stages in the long and bloody 
road to the distant goal at which they would finally arrive. Their purpose is abolition—uni¬ 
versal abolition—peaceably if they can, forcibly if they must.” 

The Fremont party of 1856 has assumed a position identical with 
the abolition party of 1839. How well the picture of abolitionism, 
drawn by Mr. Clay in 1839, suits the Republican party of the present 
day. They have but one common aim—the dissolution of this Union. 
Mr. CJay, in speaking of our Catholic citizens, said: 

“ With regard to their superstition, they worship the same God with us. Their prayers are 
Offered, up in their temples to the same Redeemer , whose intercession we expect to save us. IN OR IS 


14 


THERE ANYTHING IN THE CATHOLIC RELIGION UNFAVORABLE TO FREE- 
DOM. All religions united with government are more or less inimical to liberty. All 
separated from the government are compatible with liberty.”— Speech in Congress, March 24, 

1818 . 

And in reference to our adopted citizens, he made use of the follow¬ 
ing language: 

“The honest, patient, industrious German readily unites with our people, establishes him¬ 
self on some of our fat lands, fills his capacious barns, and enjoys in tranquillity the abundant 
fruits which his diligence gathers around him, always ready to fly to the standard of his adopted 
country, or of its laws, when called by duties of patriotism. 

“ The gay, the versatile, the philosophical Frenchman, accommodating himself cheerfully to 
all the vicissitudes of life, incorporates himself without difficulty in our society. 

“ But of all foreigners, none amalgamate themselves so quickly with our people as the 
Natives of the Emerald Isle. In some of the visions wh ch have passed through my im¬ 
agination, I have supposed that Ireland was originally pait and parcel of this continent, and 
that by some extraordinary convulsion of nature it was torn from America, and, drifting across 
the ocean, was placed in the unfortunate vicinity of Great Britain. 

“ The same open-heartedness, the same generous hospitality, the same careless and uncal¬ 
culating indifference about human life, characterized the inhabitants of both countries. Ken¬ 
tucky nas sometimes been called the Ireland of America. And 1 have no doubt that if the 
current of emigration were reversed, and set from America upon the shores of Europe, every 
American emigrant to Ireland would there find, as every Irish emigrant here finds, a hearty 
welcome, and a happy home.”— Speech in the United States Senate in defence of the American 
System. 

The democracy now stand where Jefferson and Madison stood; they 
have restored our territorial policy as it existed prior to that violent 
and unconstitutional departure in 1820. The exigencies demanded, 
and the democracy, true to the rights of man and the equality of the 
States, gave the country the compromise measures of 1850. These 
were endorsed by the Baltimore convention, ratified by the people in 
1852 by the election of Franklin Pierce, reaffirmed by the democracy 
in the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854, re-endorsed by the Cincinnati 
convention, and will stand confirmed by the American people in 1856 
by the election of James Buchanan to the presidency. 

This vindication of the right of the people to form their own domestic 
institutions is a vindication of the instructions given by the colonies to 
their delegates to form a confederation—a vindication of the spirit and 
letter of the immortal Declaration of Independence—a vindication of 
our glorious constitution, and a vindication of the inalienable rights of 
an American citizen. 

Our opponents have been uniform in their hatred and denunciation 
of the Democratic party; they opposed the election of Jefferson, of 
Madison, and of Jackson; they repudiated the Louisiana purchase; 
they denounced the war of 1S12, and burnt blue-lights in their win¬ 
dows to light the enemy s’ ships into our harbors; they endeavored to 
defeat the purchase of the Floridas and the annexation of Texas, and 
would have welcomed our brave soldiers in Mexico “ with bloody 
hands to hospitable graves;” they forced upon the people the restric¬ 
tion of 1S20 by refusing to admit Missouri into the Union, and repu¬ 
diated it in 1848 by opposing its extension to the Pacific. The legiti¬ 
mate consequence of such repudiation was the compromise of 1850, 
the passage of wh i ch they resisted by every parliamentary expedient, 
and by every appeal to a false and fanatical philanthropy. They coun¬ 
selled revolution on the floor of Congress, in resistance to the passage 
of the Kansas-Nebraska act, because it carried out the great principles 


15 


embodied in the compromise of 1850. They would subvert, through 
emigrant aid societies and other appliances, the practical development 
ot non-intervention by Congress, and the right of the people to govern 
themselves ; they would counsel the incendiary torch and the assas¬ 
sin’s knife against the most sacred rights of American freemen in the 
Territory of Kansas ; they have a deep and profound hatred against, 
and denounce in unmeasured terms, the doctrine that the bona fide resi¬ 
dents of Kansas should adjust their domestic affairs in their own way; 
they have sought foreign aid, and have carried foreign assistance into 
the Territory of Kansas for the express purpose of interfering in the do¬ 
mestic policy of the people of that Territory; they are the authors and 
instigators ot, and before God and man are responsible for, all the out¬ 
rages, the arsons, and the murders in Kansas. 

The democracy, true to the great doctrine of the early fathers, true 
to the rights of the States, the constitution, the Union, and ever watch¬ 
ful of the peace, happiness, and prosperity of a free people, have 
sought, by wise and pacific legislation, to rescue the people of Kansas 
from the anarchy, the rapine, and murder brought upon them by the 
Black Republican party. 

The democratic Senate, on the 3d of July, 1856, after a continuous 
session of twenty-one hours, passed, and sent to the Black Republican 
House, a great pacific measure, declaring null and void those acts of* 
the Kansas Legislature repugnant to the bill of rights as embodied in 
our great charter of liberty—a measure which secures the freedom of 
speech, the freedom of the press, and the writ of habeas corpus—pro¬ 
hibits religious tests for office, or an established religion—protects the 
rights of conscience, the persons and property of the people, and their 
right to hold and bear arms—forbids excessive bail, excessive fines, 
and cruel and unusual punishments—declares that no test-oath, or 
oath to support any act of Congress or other legislative act, shall be 
required as a qualification for any office or trust, or for any employ¬ 
ment or profession, or to serve as a juror, or to vote at an election— 
and that no tax shall be imposed upon the exercise of the right of suf¬ 
frage, and guarantees to the people the free discussion of any law or 
subject of legislation, and in a free expression of opinion upon all ques¬ 
tions whatever—provides for the appointment of five commissioners 
to arrange the preliminaries and superintend the election ; for the regis¬ 
tration .of voters, and all other needful regulations necessary to a fair 
and impartial expression at the ballot-box of the bona fide residents of 
Kansas; and pledges the entire military force of the government to a 
pure and untrammelled ballot-box. If any resident shall have left the 
Territory, he is protected in his rights, provided he shall return by the 
1st day of October, 1856. If any person is imprisoned for a violation 
af the obnoxious laws of Kansas, his prison-doors are opened, and he 
is restored to all his rights. But it also provides that the people, the 
bona fide residents of Kansas, shall regulate and form their domestic 
institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the 
United States; and they shall be admitted into the Union on a footing 
with the original States whenever they shall present a constitution with 
a repi an form of government. Every Black Republican senator re- 



16 


sisted the bill at its various stages, and voted against it on its passage. 
Let it be proclaimed to the people, let it be known in every town and 
hamlet, that the democracy have given a fair and honest bill—one that 
will restore peace to a distracted country, correct the outrages and 
murders in an unhappy Territory, vindicate the majesty of the law, 
and protect the American citizen in an inalienable right—that the de¬ 
mocracy have given such a bill to the Black Republican House of Rep¬ 
resentatives lor their action. If they desire tranquillity in the States, 
peace and happiness to Kansas, and a correction of the violent abuses 
and outrages committed, the}' will immediately pass the Senate bill; 
but if outrage upon outrage and blood upon blood is necessary to the 
accomplishment of their political ends, necessary to the election of John 
C. Fremont, then will they refuse to pass the bill or to give repose to 
Kansas. 




34th Congress, ) SENATE. (Eep.Com. 

1st Session. \ f ]\' () . 34 . 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 


March 12, 1856.—Submitted, and ordered to be printed, together with the views of the mi¬ 
nority of the committee upon the same subject. Motioa to print 62,000 additional copies 
referred to the Committee on Printing. 


Mr. Douglas made the following 

REPORT. 

The Committee on Territories, to whom was referred so much of the annual mes¬ 
sage of the President of the United States as relates to Territorial affairs, to¬ 
gether with his special message of the 24 th day of January, 1856, in regard to 
Kansas Territory, and his message of the 18 th of February, in compliance with the 
resolution of the Senate of the Ath of February, 1856, requesting transcripts of 
certain papers relative to the affairs of the Territory of Kansas , having given the 
same that serious and mature deliberation which the importance of the subject 
demands , beg leave to submit the following report: 

Your committee deem this an appropriate occasion to state briefly, but distinctly, 
the principles upon which new States may be admitted and Territories organized 
under the authority of the constitution of the United States. 

The constitution (section 3, article 4) provides that “new States may be admit¬ 
ted by the Congress into this Union.” 

Section 8, Article 1: £ Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary 
and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by 
this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or office 
thereof.” 

10th amendment: “ The powers not delegated toAhe United States by the constitution, nor 
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” 

A State of the federal Union is a sovereign power, limited only by the constitu¬ 
tion of the United States. 

The limitations which that instrument has imposed are few, specific, and uni¬ 
form—applicable alike to all the States, old and new. There is no authority for 
putting a restriction upon the sovereignty of a new State, which the constitution 
has not placed on the original States. Indeed, if such a restriction could be im¬ 
posed on any State, it would instantly cease to be a State within the meaning of 
the federal constitution, and, in consequence of the inequality, would assimilate to 
the condition of a province or dependency. Hence, equality among all the States 
of the Union is a fundamental principle in our federative system—a principle em¬ 
bodied in the constitution, as the basis upon which the American Union rests. 

African slavery existed in all the colonies, under the sanction of the British gov¬ 
ernment, prior to the Declaration of Independence. When the constitution of the 
United States was adopted, it became the supreme law and bond of union between 
twelve slave-holding States and one non-slave-holding State; each State reserved 
the right to decide°the question of slavery for itself—to continue it as a domestic 
institution so long as it pleased, and to abolish it when it chose. 










2 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 


In pursuance of this reserved right, six of the original slave-holding States have 
since abolished and prohibited slavery within their limits respectively, without con¬ 
sulting Congress or their sister States, while the other six have retained and sus¬ 
tained it as a domestic institution, which, in their opinion, had become so firmly 
engrafted on their social systems, that the relation between the master and slave 
could not be dissolved with safety to either. In the meantime, eighteen new 
States have been admitted into the Union, in obedience to the federal constitution, 
on an equal footing with the original States, including, of course, the right of each 
to decide the question of slavery for itself. In deciding this question, it has so 
happened that nine of these new States have abolished and prohibited slavery, 
while the other nine have retained and regulated it. That, these new States had 
at the time of their admission, and still retain, an equal right, under the federal 
constitution, with the original States, to decide all questions of domestic policy for 
themselves, including that of African slavery, ought not to be seriously questioned, 
and certainly cannot be successfully controverted. 

They are all subject to the same supreme law, which, by the consent of each, 
constitutes the only limitation upon their sovereign authority. 

Since we find the right to admit new States enumerated among the powers ex¬ 
pressly delegated in the constitution, the question arises, whence does Congress 
derive authority to organize temporary governments for the Territories preparatory 
to their admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original States ? 
Your committee are not prepared to adopt the reasoning which deduces the power 
from that other clause of the constitution which says: 

“ Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations re¬ 
specting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.” 

The language of this clause is much more appropriate when applied to property 
than to persons. It would seem to have been employed for the purpose of confer¬ 
ring upon Congress the power of disposing of the public lands* and other property 
belonging to the United States, and to make all needful rules and regulations for 
that purpose, rather than to govern the people who might purchase those lands 
from the United States and become residents thereon. The word “ territory ” was 
an appropriate expression to designate that large area of public lands of which the 
United States had become the owner by virtue of the Revolution and the cession 
by the several States. The additional w T ords “ or other property belonging to the 
United States ” clearly show that the term “ territory ” was used in its ordinary 
geographical sense to designate the public domain, and not as descriptive of the 
whole body of the people, constituting a distinct political community, who have 
no representation in Congress, and consequently no voice in making the laws upon 
which all their rights and liberties would depend, if it were conceded that Con¬ 
gress had the general and unlimited power to make all “needful rules and regula¬ 
tions concerning ” their internal affairs and domestic concerns. It is under this 
clause of the constitution, and from this alone, that Congress derives authority to 
provide for the surveys of the public lands, for securing pre-emption rights to 
actual settlers, for the establishment of land offices in the several States and Terri¬ 
tories, for exposing the lands to private and public sale, for issuing patents and 
confirming titles, and, in short, for making all needful rules and regulations for pro¬ 
tecting and disposing of the public domain and other property belonging to the 
United States. * 

These needful rules and regulations may be embraced, and usually are found, 
in general laws applicable alike to States and Territories, wherever the United 
States may be the owner of the lands or other property to be regulated or disposed 
of. It can make no difference, under this clause of the constitution, whether the 
“ territory, or other property belonging to the United States,” shall be situated 
in Ohio or Kansas, in Alabama or Minnesota, in California or Oregon; the power 
of Congress to make needful rules and regulations is the same in the States and 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 


3 


Territories, to the extent that the title is vested in the United States. Inasmuch 
as the right of legislation in such cases rests exclusively upon the fact of ownership, 
it is obvious it can extend only to the tracts of land to which the United States 
possess the title, and must cease in respect to each tract the instant it becomes 
private property by purchase from the United States. It will scarcely be con¬ 
tended that Congress possesses the power to legislate for the people of those States 
in which public lands may be located, in respect to their internal affairs and do¬ 
mestic concerns, merely because the United States may be so fortunate as to own a 
portion of the territory and other property within the limits of those States. Yet 
it should be borne in mind that this clause of the constitution confers upon Con¬ 
gress the same power to make needful rules and regulations in the States as itdoes 
in the Territories, concerning the territory or other property belonging to the 
United States. 

In view of these considerations, your committee are not prepared to affirm that 
Congress derives authority to institute governments for the people of the Territo¬ 
ries from that clause of the constitution which confers the right to make needful 
rules and regulations concerning the territory or other property belonging to the 
United States ; much less can we deduce the power from any supposed necessity, 
arising outside of the constitution, and not provided for in that instrument. The 
federal government is one of delegated and limited powers, x clothed with no rightful 
authority which does not result directly and necessarily from the constitution. 
Necessity, when experience shall have clearly demonstrated its existence, may fur¬ 
nish satisfactory reasons for enlarging the authority of the federal government,, by 
amendments to the constitution, in the mode prescribed in that instrument; but 
cannot afford the slightest excuse for the assumption of powers not delegated, and 
which, by the tenth amendment, are expressly “ reserved to the States respectively 
or to the people.” Hence, before the power can be safely exercised, the right of 
Congress to organize Territories, by instituting temporary governments, must be 
traced directly to some provision of the constitution conferring the authority in ex¬ 
press terms, or as a means necessary and proper to carry into effect some one or 
more of the powers which are specifically delegated. Is not the organization of a 
Territory eminently necessary and proper as a means of enabling the people 
thereof to form and mould their local and domestic institutions and establish a 
State government under the authority of the constitution, preparatory to its ad¬ 
mission into the Union? If so, the right of Congress to pass the organic act for 
the temporary government is clearly included in the provision which authorizes the 
admissiou of new States. This power, however, being an incident to an express 
grant, and resulting from it by necessary implication, as an appropriate means for 
carrying it into effect, must be exercised in harmony with the nature and objects 
of the grant from wbich it is deduced. The organic act of the Territory, deriving 
its validity from the power of Congress to admit new States, must contain no pio- 
vision or restriction which would destroy or impair the equality of the proposed 
State with the original States, or impose any limitation upon its sovereignty which 
the constitution has not placed on all the States. So far as the organization of a 
Territory may be necessary and proper as a means of carrying into effect the pro¬ 
vision of the constitution for the admikion of new States, and when exercised with 
reference only to that end, the power of Congress is clear and explicit; but beyond 
that point the authority cannot extend, for the reason that ail “ powers not dele¬ 
gated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, 
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In other words, the or¬ 
ganic act of the Territory, conforming to the spirit of the grant from which it re¬ 
ceives its validity, must leave the people entirely free to form and regulate their 
domestic institutions and internal concerns in their own way, subject only to the 
constitution of the United States, to the end that when they attain the requisite 
population, and establish a Stale government in conformity to the federal constitu 


4 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS 


tion, they may be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original 
States in all respects whatsoever. 

The act of Congress for the organization of the Territories of Kansas and Ne¬ 
braska was designed to conform to the spirit and letter of the federal constitution, 
by preserving and maintaining the fundamental principle of equality among all the 
States of the Union, notwithstanding the restriction contained in the 8th section of 
the act of March 6,1820, (preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union,) 
which assumed to deny to the people forever the right to settle the question of 
slavery for themselves, provided they should make their homes and organize States 
north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude. Conforming to the 
cardinal principles of State equality and self-government, in obedience to the con¬ 
stitution, the Kansas-Nebraska act declared, in the precise language of the com¬ 
promise measures of 1850, that, “ when admitted as a State, the said Territory, or 
any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union, with or without slavery, 
as their constitutions may prescribe at the time of their admission.” Again, after 
declaring the said 8th section of the Missouri act (sometimes called the Missouri 
compromise, or Missouri restriction) inoperative and void as being repugnant to 
these principles, the purpose of Congress, in passing the act, is declared in these 
words: 

“ It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any State or 
Territory, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form 
and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of 
he United States” 

The passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act was strenuously resisted by all persons 
who thought it a less evil to deprive the people of new States and Territories of 
the right of State equality and self-government under the constitution, than to al¬ 
low them to decide the slavery question for themselves, as every State of the Union 
had done, and must retain the undeniable right to do, so long as the constitution 
of the United States shall be maintained as the supreme law of the land. Find- 
ing opposition to the principles of the act unavailing in the halls of Congress and 
under the forms of the constitution, combinations were immediately entered into 
.'n some portions 6f the Union to control the political destinies, and form and reg¬ 
ulate the domestic institutions, of those Territories and future States, through the 
machinery of emigrant aid societies. In order to give consistency and efficiency 
to the movement, and surround it with the color of legal authority, an act of in¬ 
corporation was procured from the legislature of the State of Massachusetts, in 
which it was provided, in the first section, that twenty persons therein named, and 
their “ associates, successors, and assigns, are hereby made a corporation, by the 
name of the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Company, for the purpose of assisting 
emigrants to settle in the West; and for this purpose they shall have all the pow¬ 
ers and privileges, and be subject to all the duties, restrictions, and liabilities set 
forth in the 38th and 44th chapters of the revised statutes” of Massachusetts. 

The second section limited the capital stock of the company to five millions of 
dollars, and authorized the whole to be invested in real and personal estate, with 
the proviso that “ the said corporation shall not hold real estate in this common¬ 
wealth (Massachusetts) to an amount exceeding twenty thousand dollars.” 

The third section provided for dividing the capital stock of the corporation into 
shares of one hundred dollars each, and prescribed the mode, time, and amounts 
in which assessments might be made on each share. 

The fourth and last section was in these words: 

“ At all meetings of the stockholders, each stockholder shall be entitled to cast one vote for 
each share held by him; provided , that no stockholder shall be entitled to cast more than fifty 
votes on shares held by himself, nor more than fifty votes by proxy.” 

Although the act of incorporation does not distinctly declare that the company 
was formed for the purpose of controlling the domestic institutions of the Territory 
of Kansas, and forcing it into the Union with a prohibition of slavery in her con- 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 


5 


stitution,. regardless of the rights and wishes of the people as guarantied by the 
constitution of the United States, and secured by their organic law, yet the whole 
history of the movement, the circumstances in which it had its origin, and the 
professions and avowals of all engaged in it, render it certain and undeniable that 
such was its object. 

To remove all doubt upon this point, your committee will here present a few 
extracts from a pamphlet published by the company soon after its organization, 
under the following caption : 

‘‘Organization, objects, and plan of operations of the Emigrant Aid Company; also, a de¬ 
scription of Kansas, for the information of emigrants. 

“ Trustees —Amos A. Lawrence, Boston; J. M. S. Williams, Cambridge; Ely Thayer, Wor¬ 
cester. 

“ Treasurer , Amos A. Lawrence. 

“ Secretary , Thomas H. Webb, Boston. 


“For the purpose of answering numerous communications concerning the plan of opera¬ 
tions of the Emigrant Aid Company, and the resources of Kansas Territory, which it is 
proposed now to settle, the secretary of the company has deemed it expedient to publish the 
following definite information in regard to this particular: * * * * * * * * * 

“For these purposes it is recommended, 1st. That the trustees contract immediately with 
some of the competing lines of travel for the conveyance of 20,000 persons from Massachusetts 
to that place in the West which the trustees shall select for their first settlement. * * * 
“It is recommended that the company’s agents locate and take up for the company’s bene¬ 
fit, the sections of land in which the boarding-houses and mills are located, and no others. 
And further, whenever the Territory shall be organized as a free State, the trustees shall dis¬ 
pose of all its interests there, replace by the sales the money laid out, declare a dividend to 
the stockholders, and that they then select a new field, and 'make similar arrangements 
for the settlement and organization of another free State of this Union. * * * * * 

“With the advantages attained by such a system of effort, the territory selected as the scene 
of operations would, it is believed, be filled up with free inhabitants. * * * * * * 

“ There is reason to suppose several thousand men of New England origin propose to emi¬ 
grate under the auspices of some such arrangement, this very summer. Of the whole emigra¬ 
tion from Europe, amounting to some 400,000 persons, there can be no difficulty in inducing 
some thirty or forty thousand to take the same direction. * * * * * * * * * * 

“ Especially will it prove an advantage to Massachusetts, if she create the new State by her 
foresight, supply the necessities to its inhabitants, and open in the outset communications 
between their homes and her ports and factories. * * * * * * * * * * * * 

“ It determines in the right way the institutions of the unsettled Territories, in less time 
than the discussion of them has required in Congress.” 


Having thus securecHrom the State of Massachusetts the color of legal authority 
to Sanction their proceedings, in perversion of the plain provisions of an act of 
Congress passed in pursuance of the constitution, the company commenced its op¬ 
erations by receiving subscriptions to its capital stock, and exerting its whole power 
to harmonize, combine, and direct, in the channel it should mark out, all the ele¬ 
ments of opposition to the principles of the Kansas and Nebraska act. The plan 
adopted was to make it the interest of a large body of men, who sympathised with 
them in the objects of the corporation, to receive their aid and protection, and, un¬ 
der the auspices of the company, to proceed to Kansas, and acquire whatever resi¬ 
dence, and do whatever acts, .might be found necessary to enable them to vote at 
the elections, and through the ballot-box, if possible, to gain control over the legis¬ 
lation of the Territory. This movement is justified by those who originated and 
control the plan, upon the ground that the persons whom they sent to Kansas were 
freemen, who, under the constitution and laws, had a perfect right to emigrate to 
Kansas or any other Territory; that the act of emigration was entirety voluntary 
on their part, and when they arrived in the Territory as actual settlers, they had- 
as good a right as any other citizens to vote at the elections and participate in the 
control of the government of the Territory. This would undoubtedly be true in a 
ease of ordinary emigration, such as has filled up our new States and Territories, 
where each individual has gone, on his own account, to improve his condition and 
that of his family. But it is a very different thing where a State creates a vast 
moneyed corporation for the purpose of controlling the domestic institutions of a 
distinct political community fifteen hundred miles distant, and 9ends out the emi- 



6 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 


grants only as a means of accomplishing its paramount political objects. When a 
powerful corporation, with a capital of five millions of dollars invested in houses 
and lands, in merchandise and mills, in cannon and rifles, in powder and lead—in 
all the implements of art, agriculture, and war, and employing a corresponding 
number of men, all under the management and control of non-resident directors 
and stockholders, who are authorized by their charter to vote by proxy to the extent 
of fifty votes each, enters a distant and sparsely-settled Territory with the fixed 
purpose of wielding all its power to control the domestic institutions and political 
destinies of the Territory, it becomes a question of fearful import how far the ope¬ 
rations of the company are compatible with the rights and liberties of the people. 
Whatever may be the' extent or limit of congressional authority over the Territo¬ 
ries, it is clear that no individual State has the right to pass any law or authorize 
any act concerning or affecting the Territories, which it might not enact in refer¬ 
ence to any other State. 

If the people of any State should become so much enamored with their own 
peculiar institution as to conceive the philanthropic scheme of forcing so great a 
blessing on their unwilling neighbors, and with that view should create a mam¬ 
moth moneyed corporation, for the avowed purpose of sending a sufficient number 
of their young men into a neighboring State, to remain long enough to acquire the 
right of voting, with the fixed and paramount object of reversing the settled policy 
and changing the domestic institutions of such State, would it not be deemed an 
act of aggression, as offensive and flagrant as if attempted by direct and open 
violence? It is a well-settled principle of constitutional law, in this country, that 
while hll the States of the Union are united in one for certain purppses, yet each 
State, in respect to everything which affects its domestic policy and internal con¬ 
cerns, stands in the relation of a foreign power to every other State. 

Hence, no State has a right to pass any law, or do or authorize any act, with 
the view to influence or change the domestic policy of any other State or Territory 
of the Union, more than it would with reference to France or England, or any 
other foreign State with which we are at peace. Indeed, every State of this 
Union is under higher obligations to observe a friendly forbearance and generous 
comity towards each other member of the confederacy than the laws of nations 
can impose on foreign States. While foreign States are regained from all acts of 
aggression and unkindness only by that spirit of comity which the laws of nations 
enjoin upon all friendly powers, we have assumed the additional obligation to obey 
the constitution, which secures to every State the right to control its own internal 
affairs. If repugnance to domestic slavery can justify Massachusetts in incorporat¬ 
ing a mammoth company to influence and control that question in any State or 
Territory of this Union, the same principle of action would authorize France or 
England to use the same means to accomplish the same end in Brazil or Cuba, or 
in fifteen States of this Union; while it would license the United States to inter¬ 
fere with serfdom in Russia, or polygamy in Turkey, or any other obnoxious insti¬ 
tution in any part of the world. The same principle of action, when sanctioned 
by our example, would authorize all the kingdoms, and empires, and despotisms in 
the world to engage in a common crusade against republicanism in America, as an 
institution quite as obnoxious to them as domestic slavery is to any portion of the 
people of the United States. 

It our obligations arising under the laws of nations are so imperative as to make 
it our duty to enact neutrality laws, and to exert the whole power and authority of 
the executive branch of the government, including the army and navy, to enforce 
them, in restraining our citizens from interfering with the internal concerns of 
foreign States, can the obligations of each State and Territory of this Union be less 
imperative under the federal constitution, to observe entire neutrality in re¬ 
spect to the domestic institutions of the several States and Territories? Non¬ 
interference with the internal concerns of other States is recognised by all civil- 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 


7 


ized countries as a fundamental principle of the laws of nations, for the reason 
that the peace of the world could not be maintained for a single day without it. 
How, then, can we hope to preserve peace and fraternal feelings among the differ¬ 
ent portions of this republic, unless we yield implicit obedience to a principle which 
has all the sanction of patriotic duty as well as constitutional obligation ? 

When the emigrants sent out by the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Company, 
and their affiliated societies, passed through the State of Missouri in large num¬ 
bers on their way^o Kansas, the violence of their language, and the unmistakable 
indications of their determined hostility to the domestic institutions of that State, 
created apprehensions that the object of the company was to abolitionize Kansas as 
a means of prosecuting a relentless warfare upon the institutions of slavery within 
the limits of Missouri. These apprehensions increased and spread with the pro¬ 
gress of events, until they became the settled convictions of the people of that por¬ 
tion of the State most exposed to the danger by their proximity to the Kansas 
border. The natural consequence was, that immediate steps were taken by the 
people of the western counties of Missouri to stimulate, organize, and carry into 
effect a 'system of emigration similar to that of the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid 
Company, for the avowed purpose of counteracting the effects, and protecting 
themselves and their domestic institutions from the consequences, of that company’s 
operations. 

The material difference in the character of the two rival and conflicting move- $ 
ments consists in the fact that the one had its origin in an aggressive, and the other 
in a defensive policy; the one was organized in pursuance of the provisions and 
claiming to act under the authority of a legislative enactment of a distant State, 
whose internal prosperity and domestic security did not depend upon the success 
of the movement; while the other was the spontaneous action of the people living 
in the immediate vicinity of the theatre of operations, excited, by a sense of com¬ 
mon danger, to the necessity of protecting their own firesides from the appre¬ 
hended horrors of servile insurrection and intestine war. Both parties, conceiving it 
to be essential to the success of their respective plans that they should be upon the 
field of operations prior to the first election in the Territory, selected principally 
young men, persons unencumbered by families, and whose conditions in life ena¬ 
bled them to leave at a moment’s warning, and move with great celerity, to go at 
once, and select and d£cupy the most eligible sites and favored locations in the 
Territory, to be held by themselves and their associates w r ho should follow them. 
For the successful prosecution of such a scheme, the Missourians who lived in the 
immediate vicinity possessed peculiar advantages over their rivals from the more 
remote portions of the Union. Each family could send one of its members across 
the line to mark out his claim, erect a cabin, and put in a small crop, sufficient to 
give him as valid a right to be deemed an actual settler and qualified voter as 
those who were being imported by the emigrant aid societies. In an unoccupied 
Territory, where the lands have not been surveyed, and where there were no marks 
or lines to indicate the boundaries of sections and quarter sections, and where no 
legal title could be had until after the surveys should be made, disputes, quarrels, 
violence, and bloodshed might have been expected as the natural and inevitable 
consequences of such extraordinary systems of emigration, which divided and 
arrayed the settlers into two great hostile parties, each having an inducement to 
claim more than was his right, in order to hold it for some new comer of his own 
party, and at the same time prevent persons belonging to the opposite party from 
settling in the neighborhood. As a result of this state of things, the great mass of 
emigrants from the Northwest and from other States, who went there on their own 
account, with no other object and influence, by no other motives than to improve 
their condition and secure good homes for their families, were compelled to array 
themselves under the banner of one of these hostile parties, in order to insure protec¬ 
tion to themselves and their claims against the aggressions and violence of the other. 


8 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 


At the first election held in the Territory, on the 29th day of November, 1854, 
for a delegate to Congress, J. W. Whitfield was chosen by an overwhelming majority, 
having received the votes of men of all parties who were in favor of the principles 
of the Kansas-Nebraska act, and opposed to placing the political destinies of the 
Territory in the keeping of the Abolition party of the northern States, to be man¬ 
aged through the machinery of their emigrant aid companies. No sooner was the 
result of the election known, than the defeated party proclaimed, throughout the 
length and breadth of the republic, that it had been produced by the invasion of 
the Territory by a Missouri mob, which had overawed and outnumbered and-out¬ 
voted the bona-jide settlers of the Territory. By reference to the executive journal 
of the Territory, which will be found in the papers furnished by the President of 
the United States in response to a call of the Senate, it will be found that Gover¬ 
nor Reeder, in obedience to what he considered to be a duty enjoined on him by 
the act of Congress organizing the Territory, on the 10th day of November, 1854, 
issued a proclamation, prescribing the time, place, and mode of holding the elec¬ 
tion, and appointing by name three citizens of the Territory residing in each elec¬ 
tion district to conduct the election in such district, together with the following 
oath, which was taken by the judges before entering on their dutiew^, to wit: 

“ We do severally swear that we will perform our duties as judges of the election to be held 
this day in the-district of the Territory of Kansas, to the best of our judgment and abil¬ 

ity; that we will keep a correct and faithful record or list of persons who shall vote at said 
election; that we will poll no tickets from any person who is not an actual bona-fide resident 
and inhabitant of said Territory on the day of election, and whom we shall not honestly believe 
to be a qualified voter according to the act of Congress organizing said Territory; that we 
will reject the votes of all and every non-resident whom we shall believe to have come into 
the Territory for the mere purpose of voting : that in all cases where we are ignorant of the 
voter’s right, we will require legal evidence thereof, by his own oath or otherwise; that we 
will make a true and faithful return of the votes which shall be polled to the governor of the 
said Territory.” 

The same proclamation pointed out in detail the mode in which the election 
should be conducted; and, among other things, that the polls will be opened for 
reception of votes between eight and ten o’clock a.ra., and kept open continually 
until six o’clock p.m.; that the judges will keep two corresponding lists of persons 
w 7 ho shall vote, numbering each name, that w r hen a dispute arises as to the quali¬ 
fications of a voter, the. judges shall examine the voter, or iany other persons, under 
oath, upon the subject, and the decision of a majority of the board rvill be con¬ 
clusive ; that when the election shall close, the judges shall open and count the 
votes, and keep two corresponding tally-lists, and if the tally-lists shall agree, the 
judges shall then publicly proclaim the result, and shall make up and sign dupli¬ 
cate certificates in the form prescribed ; and shall certify, under their oaths, that 
the certificate is a true and correct return of the votes "polled by lawful resident 
voters. 

The proclamation also provides that the tickets or votes polled shall, after being 
counted, be again deposited in the box, together with one copy of the oath, and one 
list of the voters, and one tally-list, and one certificate of return; and that the 
judges shall seal them up in the box, and carefully preserve the same until called 
for by the governor of said Territory, in the event of its correctness being con¬ 
tested; and that the remaining copy of the oath, list of voters, tally-list, and re¬ 
turn, will be taken by one of the judges, who shall deliver the same in person to 
the governor. 

The proclamation also provides that “In case any person or persons shall dis¬ 
pute the fairness or correctness of the return of any election district, they shall 
make a written statement, directed to the governor, and setting forth the specific 
cause of complaint or errors in the conducting or returning of the election in said 
district, signed by not less than ten qualified voters of the Territory, and with an 
affidavit of one or more qualified voters to the truth of the fact therein stated; 
and the said complaint and affidavit shall be presented to the governor on or before 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 9 

the fourth day of December next, when the proper proceedings will be taken to 
hear and decide such complaint.” 

By reference to the executive journal of the Territory, we find the following 
entry: 

“ December 4, 1854.—The judges of the several election districts made return of the votes 
polled at the election held on the 29th day of November last, for a delegate to the House of 
Representatives of the United States; from which it appeared that the votes in the said sev¬ 
eral districts were as follows, to wit 

> Here follows a list of the votes cast for each candidate in each of the seventeen 
districts of the Territory, showing that 


J. W. Whitfield had received. 2,258 votes. 

All other persons received. 5*75 « 


And on the same page is the following entry: 

“ December 5,1854.—On examining and collating the returns, J. W. Whitfield is declared by 
the governor to be duly elected delegate to the House of Representatives of the United States, 
and the same day the certificate of the governor, under the seal of the Territory, issued to said 
J. W. Whitfield of his election.” 

It nowhere appears that General Whitfield’s right to a seat by virtue of that 
election was ever contested. It does not appear that “ ten qualified voters of the 
Territory” were ever found who were willing to make the “ written statement di¬ 
rected to the governor, with an affidavit” of one or more qualified voters to the 
“truth of the facts therein stated,” to “dispute the fairness or correctness of the 
returns,” or to “set forth specific cause of complaint or errors in the conducting or 
returning of the election” in any one of the seventeen districts of the Territory. 
Certain it is, that there could not have been a system of fraud and violence such 
as has been charged by the agents and supporters of the emigrant aid societies, 
unless the governor and judges of election were parties to it; and your com¬ 
mittee are not prepared to assume a fact so disreputable to them, and so improba¬ 
ble upon the state of facts presented, without specific charges and direct proof. In 
the absence of all proof and probable truth, the charge that the Missourians had 
invaded the Territory and controlled the congressional election by fraud and vio¬ 
lence, was circulated throughout the free States, and made the basis of the most 
inflammatory appeals to all men opposed to the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska 
act to emigrate or send emigrants to Kansas, for the purpose of repelling the inva¬ 
ders, and assisting their friends who were then in the Territory in putting down the 
slave power, and prohibiting slavery in Kansas, with the view of making it a free 
State. Exaggerated accounts of the large number of emigrants on their way under 
the auspices of the emigrant aid companies with the view of controlling the elec¬ 
tion for members of the Territorial legislature, which was to lake place on the 
30th of March, 1855, w'ere published and circulated. These accounts being repub¬ 
lished and believed in Missouri, where the excitement had already been inflamed to 
a fearful intensity, induced a corresponding effort to send at least an equal number, 
to counteract the apprehended result of this new importation. Tour committee 
have not been able to obtain definite and satisfactory information in regard to the 
alleged irregularities in conducting the election, and the number of illegal votes on 
the 30th of March; but, from the most reliable sources of information accessible to 
your committee, including various papers, documents, and statements, kindly fur¬ 
nished by Messrs. Whitfield and Reeder, rival claimants of the delegate’s seat in 
Congress for Kansas Territory, it would seem that the facts are substantially as 
follows : 

The . election was held in obedience to the proclamation of the governor of the 
Territory, which prescribed the mode of proceeding, the form of the oath and re¬ 
turns, the precautionary safeguards against illegal voting, and the mode ot con 
testing the election, which were, in substance, the same as those already retesred to 
in connexion with the congressional e^ction. When the period arrived for the 
governor to canvass the returns, and issue certificates to tne persons elected, it ap- 




10 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 


peared that protests had been filed against the fairness of the proceedings and the 
correctness of the returns, in seven out of the eighteen election districts into which 
the Territory had been divided for election purposes, alleging fraudulent and illegal 
voting by persons who were not actual settlers and qualified voters of the Territory. 
It also appears that in some of these contested cases the form of the oath adminis¬ 
tered to the judges, and of the returns made by them, were not in conformity to 
the proclamation of the governor. After a careful investigation of the facts of 
each case, as presented- by the returns of the judges, and the protests and allega¬ 
tions of all persons who disputed the fairness of the election and the correctness of 
the returns, the governor came to the conclusion that it was his duty to set aside 
the election in these seven disputed districts; the effect of which was, to create two 
vacancies in the council, and nine in the house of representatives of the Territory, 
to be filled by a new election; and to change the result so far as to cause the cer¬ 
tificate for one councilman and one representative to issue to different persons than 
those returned as elected by the judges. Accordingly the governor issued his 
writs for special elections, to be held on the 24th of May, to fill those vacancies, 
and, at the same time, granted certificates of election to eleven couneibnen and 
seventeen representatives, whose election had not been contested, and whom he 
adjudged to have been fairly elected. At the special election to fill these vacancies, 
three of the persons whose election on the 30th of March had been set aside for the 
reasons already stated, were re-elected, and in the other districts different persons 
were returned; and the governor having adjudged them to have been duly elected, 
accordingly granted them'certificates of election; thus making the full complement 
of thirteen councilmen and twenty-six representatives, of whom, by the organic 
law of the Territory, the legislature was to be composed. On the 17th day of 
April the governor issued his proclamation, summoning these thirteen councilmen 
and twenty-six representatives, whom he had commissioned as having been fairly 
■elected, to assemble at Pawnee City on the 2d day of July, and organize as the 
legislature of the Territory of Kansas. 

It appears from the journal that the two houses did assemble, in obedience to 
the governor’s proclamation, at the time and place appointed by him, and, after the 
oath of office had been duly administered by one of the judges of the supreme 
court of the Territory to each of the members who held the governor’s certificate, 
proceeded to organize their respective houses by the election of their officers; and 
each notified the other, by resolution, that they were thus duly organized. Also, 
by joint resolution, appointed a committee who waited on the governor, and in¬ 
formed him that “ the two houses of the Kansas legislature are organized, and are 
now ready to proceed to business, and to receive” such communication as he may 
deem necessary. 

In response to this joint resolution, “ a message from the governor, by Mr. Hig¬ 
gins, his private secretary; transmitting his message, was received, and ordered to 
be read.” 

The message commences thus : 

° • 

1 To the Honorable the Council and House of Representatives of the 'Territory of Kansas : 

“ Having been duly notified that your respective bodies have organized for the performance 
of your official functions, I herewith submit to you the usual executive communications rel¬ 
ative to subjects of legislation, which universal and long-continued usage in analogous case^ 
would seem to demand, although no express requirement of it is to be found in the act of 
Congress which has brought us into official existence, and prescribed our official duties. 

“ The position which w;e occupy, and the solemn trust which is confided to us for originating 
the laws and institutions, and moulding the destinies of a new republic in the very geograph¬ 
ical centre of our vast and magnificent confederation, cannot but impress us with a deep and 
solemn sense of the heavy responsibility which we have assumed, and admonish us to lay aside 
all selfish and equivocal motives, to discard all unworthy ends, and, in the spirit of justice 
and charity to each other, with pure hearts, tempered feelings, and sober judgments, to ad¬ 
dress ourselves to our task, and so perform it in the fear and reverence of that God who-over¬ 
sees our work, that the star that we expect to add to the national banner shall be dimmed by 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 11 

no taint or tarnish of dishonor, and be subject to no reproach save that -which springs from 
the inevitable fallibility of just and upright men.” 

The governor, -with the view to the “ ascertainment of the existing law” in the 
Territory, proceeds to trace the history of all legislation affecting it since the coun¬ 
try was acquired from France, and advises the legislature to pass such laws as the 
public interest might require upon all' appropriate subjects of legislation, and par¬ 
ticularly the slavery question, the division of the Territory into counties, the or¬ 
ganization of county courts, the election of judicial and ministerial officers, educa¬ 
tion, taxes, revenues, the location of the permanent seat of government, and the or¬ 
ganization of the militia, as subjects worthy of their immediate attention. 

From this message, as well as from all the official acts of the governor preceding 
. it, having reference to the election and return of the members and the convening 
of the two houses for legislative business, the conclusion is irresistible, that up to 
this period of time the governor had never conceived the idea—if, indeed, he has 
since entertained it—that the two houses were spurious and fraudulent assemblies, 
having no rightful authority to' pass laws which would be binding upon the people 
of Kansas. On the first day of the session, and immediately after the organization 
of the house was effected, the following resolution was adopted : 

“ Resolved , That all persons who may desire to contest the seats of any persons now hold¬ 
ing certificates of election as members of this house, may present their protests to the com¬ 
mittee on credentials, and that notice thereof shall be given to the persons holding such cer¬ 
tificates.” 

On the 4th day of July, (being the third day of the session,) the majority of the 
committee, including four of the five members, reported that, “ having heard and 

EXAMINED ALL THE EVIDENCE TOUCHING THE MATTER OF INQUIRY BEFORE THEM, 

and taking the organic law of Congress, passed on the 20th day of May, in the 
year 1854, organizing the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska,” as their guiding- 
star, they have arrived at the conclusions which they proceed to elucidate and 
enforce in a lengthy report. From this report, it appears that fifteen out of 
twenty-two members present were permitted to retain their seats by unanimous 
consent, no one appearing to contest or dispute the fairness of the election, or 
regularity or truthfulness of the return, in either of their cases. Hence the contest 
was reduced to the claims of one member who received the certificate under the 
general election of the 30th March, and the six members present who received 
certificates under the special election of the 24th of May. In the first case the 
decision of the governor was reversed, and the seat awarded to the candidate 
who received the highest number of votes at the election on the 30th of March, 
and from whom the certificate had been withheld by the governor, upon the 
ground of irregularity in the election returns from one precinct, and the exclusion 
of which poll gave the majority to the opposing candidate. In the other six cases 
the sitting members were deprived of their seats; and the candidates receiving the 
highest number of votes at the general election on the 30th of March were 
awarded their places, upon the ground that the special election on the 24th of 
May was illegal and void, the governor not being authorized, by the organic law 
of the Territory, to go behind the returns, and set aside the election held on the 
30th of March. 

The minority report dissents from the reasoning, and protests against the con¬ 
clusions of the majority, and affirms the right of the sitting members to retain their 
seats, upon the ground that the governor’s certificate was not merely prima-facie 
evidence, but -was conclusive, in respect to the rights of all claimants and contest¬ 
ants * and hence the house could not go behind the certificates of election to in¬ 
quire whether there had been a previous election in those districts on the 30th of 
March and who had received the highest number of legal votes at that election. 
The proposition is thus stated in the minority report: “I cannot agree that this 
body has the right to go behind the decision of the governor, who, by virtue of his 
office, is the organizing federal arm of the general government, to evolve and man- 


12 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 


age a new government for this Territory, for the obvious reason that Congress 
makes him the sole judge of the qualifications for membership.” It is true, that 
the minority report alludes to “evidence before the committee of great deficiencies, 
not in the form of conducting the elections, but in the manner of holding them, 
both as to the qualifications of the judges, who presided, and the returns made out 
by them,” and says there is “no doubt that these illegal proceedings on the one 
hand induced the governor to withhold certificates from some who, from the num¬ 
ber of votes returned in their favor, might at the same time appear to have been 
properly elected, and, on the other, to have been the ground on which he presented 
a certificate in one instance, and in another ordered a new election in reference to 
other districts.” But while the minority report affirms the right of the governor 
to go behind the returns and investigate irregularities and illegal voting at the 
election, as well as deficiencies in the forms of the returns, and asserts that he did 
exercise this right in each case in which he granted or withheld a certificate, it 
maintains that the governor’s decision, as evinced by his certificate, was final and. 
conclusive, and could not be reviewed, much less reversed, by either branch of the 
Territorial legislature. So far as the question involves the legality of the Kansas 
legislature, and the validity of its acts, it is entirely immaterial whether we adopt 
the reasoning and conclusions of the minority or majority reports, for each proves 
that the legislature was legally and duly constituted. The minority report estab¬ 
lishes the fact, by the position that the governor’s certificate was conclusive, and 
that he granted certificates to ten out of the thirteen council men, and to seventeen 
out of the twenty-six representatives who finally held their seats, which was largely 
more than a quorum of each branch of the legislature. The majority report es¬ 
tablishes the same fact, by the position that after going behind the governor’s cer¬ 
tificate, and carefully examining the facts, they confirmed these, same ten council- 
men and seventeen representatives in their seats, and then awarded the sea s of the 
other three councilmen and nine representatives to the candidates whom they be¬ 
lieved to have been legally elected at the general election on the 30th of March. 

The house, by eighteen votes in the affirmative to one vote in the negative, 
passed a resolution adopting the majority report, and declaring that the contestants 
“having been duly elected on the 30th of March, 1855, are entitled to their seats 
as members of this house.” Whereupon four of the sitting members, whose seats 
were vacated by the adoption of the majority report, signed a protest, and asked 
that it be spread on the journal of the house, which was accordingly done in the 
following words: 

“ Protest. 

“We, the undersigned members of the house of representatives of Kansas Territory, believe 
the organic act organizing the said Territory gives this house no power to oust any member 
from this house who has received a certificate from the governor; that this house cannot go 
behind an election called by the governor, and consider any claims based on a prior election. 
We would therefore protest against such a proceeding, and ask this protest to be spread upon 
the journal of this house. 

“JOHN HUTCHINSON, 

“ WILLIAM JESSEE, 

“ AUGUSTUS WATTLES, 

“ E. D. LADD.” 

Under date of July 6, the journal contains a message from the governor to the 
“ house of representatives of the Territory of Kansas,” returning “ house hill en¬ 
titled ‘ An act to remove the seat of government temporarily to the Shawnee Man¬ 
ual Labor School, in the Territory of Kansas,’ together with his objections ” While 
the governor, in assigning his reasons for returning the bill, labors to prove that 
the legislature had transcended its authority under the organic act, in adopting this 
particular measure, and argues against its expediency on the score of the loss of 
time and money in removing to a different place during the session, he clearly and 
distinctly recognises the council and house of representatives as constituting the 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS, 13 

legislature of the Territory of Kansas, elected and organized in conformity to the 
net of Congress creating the Territory. 

The reasons of the governor for returning the bill were spread upon the journal, 
and, upon reconsideration, it was passed by a two-thirds vote in each branch of the 
legislature, and thus became the law of the land, “ the objections of the governor 
to the contrary notwithstanding.” 

On the same day the following resolution was adopted by both houses : 

“ Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Territory of Kansas , {the Council concurring 
therein ,) That the legislature of said Territory do adjourn on the 6th day of July, A. D. 1855, 
to meet again on Monday, the 16th day of July, 1855, at 2 o’clock p, m., at the Shawnee man¬ 
ual-labor school, in the said Territory.” 

And on the same day the following resolution was also adopted by both houses: 

“ Resolved , That a committee of three be appointed on the part of the council, to act in con¬ 
junction with a committee on the part of the house of representatives, to inform his excellency 
the governor that the legislative assembly will adjourn this afternoon, to meet on Monday, 
the 16th instant, at the Shawnee manual-labor school, in the Territory of Kansas.” 

On the 16th of July the two houses assembled, in pursuance of the adjourn¬ 
ment, at the Shawnee manual-labor school, known as Shawnee Mission, and pro¬ 
ceeded to the discharge of their legislative duties. In the meantime the governor 
had also repaired to Shawnee Mission, it being the place of liis residence in the 
Territory, and the seat of the executive offices as established and continued by 
himself during the whole period he exercised the executive functions. 

On the 21st of July a message was received from the governor, by his private 
secretary, Mr. Lowry, directed “ To the House of Representatives of the Territory 
of Kansas,” in which he says : 

«I return to your house, in which they originated, the bill entitled ‘ An act to prevent the 
sale of intoxicating liquors and games of chance within one mile of the Shawnee Manual 
Labor School in the Territory of Kansas,’ and the bill entitled * An act to establish a ferry at 
the town of Atchison, in Kansas Territory,’ without my approval. 13ee nothing in the bills 
themselves to prevent my sanction of them, and my reasons for disapproval have been doubt¬ 
less anticipated by you, as necessarily resulting from the opinion expressed in my message of 
the 6th instant.” * 

The governor then proceeds to argue the question at great length, whether the 
legislature is noiv in session at a place which can be recognised as a seat of'gov¬ 
ernment where the business of legislation can be legally or legitimately carried on. 

He does not question the fairness and legality of the election of the members 
composing the legislature ; nor the regularity and validity of their organization ; 
nor their competency as a legislature to pass all laws which they may deem neces¬ 
sary and proper for the best interests of the people of Kansas, provided it shall be 
done at the right place. Upon this point he says: 

a geems to be plain that the legislature now in session, so far as the place is concerned, is 
in contravention of the act of Congress, and where they have no right to sit, and can make 
no valid legislation. Entertaining these views, I can give no sanction to any bill that may 
be passed; and if my reasons are not satisfactory to the legislative assembly, it follows that 
we must act independently of each other.” 

In conclusion the governor says: 

u if i atn right in these opinions, and our Territory shall derive no fruits from the meeting 
of the present legislative assembly, I shall at least have the satisfaction of recollecting that I 
ea lled the attention of the assembly to the point before they removed, and that the responsi¬ 
bility, therefore, rests not on the executive.” 

The governor having thus suspended all official intercourse with the two branches 
of the legislature, refusing to examine their acts with a view of either approving or 
disapproving 4hem, they appointed a joint committee of the two houses to draught 
a memorial to the President of the United States, asking his removal from the 
office of governor; which memorial was signed by the presiding officers and mem¬ 
bers in joint session. The memorialists, after reviewing the causes which had led 
to such serious difficulties, and vindicating the right of the legislature, under the 


14 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 


¥ 

organic act, to remove the seat of government from Pawnee City to Shawnee Mis¬ 
sion, concluded as follows: 

“ In conclusion, we charge the governor, A. H. Reeder, with wilful neglect of the interests 
of the Territory; with endeavoring by all means in his power to subvert the ends and objects 
intended to be accomplished by the ‘ Kanzas and Nebraska bill/ by neglecting the public in¬ 
terests and making them subservient to private speculation; by aiding and encouraging per¬ 
sons in factious and treasonable opposition to the wishes of the majority of the citizens of the 
Territory, and the laws of the United States in force in said Territory; by encouraging per¬ 
sons to violate the laws of the United States, and set at defiance the commands of the general 
government; by inciting persons to resist the laws which may be passed by the present 
legislative assembly of this Territory. For these, and many other reasons, we respectfully 
pray your excellency to remove the said A. H. Reeder from the exercise of the functions now 
held by him in said Territory; and represent that a continuance of the same will be preju¬ 
dicial to the best interests*of the said Territory. And, as in duty bound, we will ever pray,” 
&c., &e. 

[.Signed by the officers and members of both houses .J 

On the 15th of August, Governor Reeder addressed a note to the Department of 
State, acknowledging the receipt of a communication from the acting Secretary, 
under date of the 28th July, in which he was notified that “in consequence of your 
[Governor Reeder’s] purchase of Kansas half-breed lands,” and “ more especially 
the undertaking of sundry persons, yourself included, to lay^ out new cities on mili¬ 
tary or other reservations in the Territory of Kansas,” and “ more particularly as 
you have summoned the legislative assembly of the Territory to meet at one of the 
places referred to, denominated in your official proclamation ‘Pawnee City,’ I have, 
therefore, by the direction of the President, to notify you that your functions and 
authority as governor of the Territory of Kansas are hereby terminated.” 

On the 16th of August, the journal of the house of representatives says : 

“The following message was received from Governor A. H. Reeder, by Mr. Lowry, his 
private secretary: 

“ To the honorable the members of the Council and House of Representatives of the Territory 

of Kansas d 

“ Gentlemen: Although, in my message to your bodies under date of the 21st instant, [ult.T 
I stated that I was unable to convince myself of the legality of your session at this place, for 
reasons then given, and although that opinion still remains unchanged, yet, inasmuch as’ my 
•reasons were not satisfactory to your body, and the bills passed by your houses have been up 
to this time sent to me for approval, it is proper that I should inform you that after your ad¬ 
journment of yesterday I received official notification that my functions as governor of the 
Territory of Kansas were terminated. No successor having arrived, Secretary Woodson will 
of course perform the duties of the office as acting governor. 

“A. H. REEDER.” 

Inasmuch as Governor Reeder dissolved his official relations with the legislature, 
and denied the validity of their acts, solely upon the ground that they were enacted^ 
in the wrong place, it becomes material to inquire whether it was competent for 
them, under the organic act, to remove the seat of government temporarily from 
“ Pawnee City” to the Shawnee Mission. The 24th section of the organic act 
provides “ that the legislative power of the Territory shall extend to all rightful 
subjects of legislation consistent with the constitution of the United States and the 
provisions of this act.” 

That the location of the seat of government, and the changing of the same 
whenever the public interests and convenience may require it, is a “ rightful sub¬ 
ject of legislation,” is too plain to admit of .argument; hence the power is clearly 
included in this general grant, and may be exercised at pleasure by the legislature, 
unless it shall be made to appear that Congress, by some other provision, has im¬ 
posed restrictions or conditions upon its exercise. 

The thirty-first section of the organic act provides “that the temporary seat of 
government of said Territory is hereby located at Fort Leavenworth; and that 
such portions of the public buildings as may not be actually used and needed for 
military purposes mar be occupied and used, under the direction of the governor 
and legislative assembly, for such public purposes as may be required under the 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 


15 


provisions of this actand the twenty-second section of the same act provides 
that “ the persons thus elected to the legislative assembly shall meet at such place 
and on such day as the governor shall appoint” for the first meeting. These two 
provisions, being parts ot the same act, and having reference to the same subject- 
matter, must be taken together, and receive such a construction as will give full 
effect to each, and not render either nugatory. While, therefore, the governor was 
authorized to convene the legislature, in the first instance, at such place as he 
should appoint, still he was required, by that provision which made Fort Leaven¬ 
worth the temporary seat of government, with the view of using some of the pub¬ 
lic buildings, to designate as the place some one of the public buildings within the 
military reservation of Fort Leavenworth. Had not Congress, in the mean time, 
interposed and changed the law, as here presented, the governor would not have 
been authorized to have convened the legislature at “Pawnee City,” or at any 
other place in the Territory than some one of the public buildings at Fort Leaven¬ 
worth, as provided in the organic act. 

In view of the fact that the Secretary of War had intimated an opinion that all 
of the public buildings at Fort Leavenworth were needed for military purposes, and 
that the location of the seat of government, even temporarily, within the lines of a 
military reservation, where the military law must necessarily prevail, would be in¬ 
convenient, if not injurious to the public service, the ‘following provision was 
adopted in the appropriation bill of the 5th of August, 1854, for the purpose of 
enabling the governor to erect buildings for the temporary seat of government at 
some more suitable and convenient point in the Territory: 

“ That in the event that the Secretary of War shall deem it inconsistent with the interest of 
the military service to furnish a sufficient portion of the military buildings at Fort Leaven¬ 
worth for the use of the Territorial government of Kansas, the sum of twenty-five thousand 
dollars shall be, and in that contingency is hereby appropriated, for the erection of public 
buildings for the use of the legislature of the Territory of Kansas, to be expended under the 
direction of the governor of said Territory.” 

Under this provision, taken in connexion with that clause of the organic act 
which authorized the governor to convene the legislature at such place as he should 
appoint, he would have had the right to establish the temporary seat of govern¬ 
ment and erect the public buildings at Pawnee City, or any other place he might 
have selected in the Territory, instead of Fort Leavenworth, but for the fact that 
on the 3d of March, 1855, and before any portion of the money had been expended, 
or even the site selected, Congress made a further appropriation of twenty-five 
thousand dollars for public buildings, with the proviso “ that said money, or any 
part thereof, or any portion of the money heretofore appropriated for this purpose, 
shall not be expended until the legislature of said Territory shall have fixed by law 
the permanent seat of government.” This provision did not confer upon the legis¬ 
lature any power in respect to the location of the seat of government, either tempo¬ 
rarily or permanently, which it did not previously possess; for the general grant, 
extending to all “ rightful subjects of legislation,” necessarily included the right to 
determine the place of holding its sessions. The object, as well as legal effect of 
this provision, was to restrain the governor from expending the appropriation until 
the voice of the people of Kansas should be expressed, through their legislature, in 
the selection of the place ; leaving the governor to perform his whole duty under 
the 22d section of the organic act, by appointing the place and day of the first 
meeting of the legislature, and of expending the money appropriated by Congress 
for the erection of public buildings, at such place as the legislature should desig¬ 
nate for the permanent seat of government of the Territory. 

Under this view of the subject, it is evident that the legislature was clothed with 
legitimate authority to enact the law in obedience to which its session was ad¬ 
journed from Pawnee City to Shawnee Mission; and that its enactments made at 
the latter place, must have the same force and validity that they would have pos¬ 
sessed had not the removal taken place. 


16 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 


Those who seek to find some tenable ground upon which to destroy the validity 
of the legislative acts of Kansas, seeing that they cannot safely rely upon the al¬ 
leged irregularity of the elections, nor upon the absence of legal authority in the 
legislature to remove the seat of government, flatter themselves that they have re¬ 
cently discovered a new fact which will extricate them from their difficulty, and 
enable them to accomplish their purpose. It is, that by the treaties of November 
7, 1825, and of August 8, 1831, with the Shawnees of Missouri and Ohio, a large 
tract of land, including the Shawnee Mission, wdiere the legislature held its session, 
and the governor established the executive offices, w r as secured to those Indians, 
with the guaranty on the part of the United States “ that said lands shall never be 
within the bounds of any State or Territory, nor subject to the laws thereof;” and 
that the 19th section of the Kansas-Nebraska act provides that “ nothing in this 
act contained shall be construed to include any territory which, by treaty w r ith any 
Indian tribe, is not, without the consent of said tribe, to be included within the 
territorial limits or jurisdiction of any State or Territory ; but all such territory 
shall be excepted out of the boundaries, and constitute no part of the Territory of 
Kansas.” Upon the authority of these clauses of the treaties, and of the act of 
Congress organizing the Territory, it is assumed that the Shawnee Mission, where 
the legislature enacted those laws, w r as not within the limits or jurisdiction of the 
Territory of Kansas, and hence they were null and void. Without admitting, even, 
by implication, that the place where the legislature should enact its laws would, to 
any extent, impair their validity, it is proper to call the attention of the Senate to 
the fact recorded on its journal, that, on the 10th of May, 1854, (only a few days 
before the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act,) a treaty was made vrith these 
same Indians, by the first article of which all the lands granted to them by the 
said treaties of 1825 and 1831 were ceded to the United States, and, being thus 
exempted from the operation of the guaranties in those treaties, w r ere, by the terms 
of the organic act of Kansas, included within the limits, and rendered subject to the 
jurisdiction of said Territory. 

The second article granted the house in which the legislature afterwards held its 
sessions, and the land upon which the house stood, to the missionary society of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church South, in these words: 

“ Of the lands lying east of the parallel line aforesaid, there shall first be set apart to the 
missionary society of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, to include the improvements of 
the Indian manual-labor school, three sections of land; to the Friends’ Shawnee labor school, 
including the improvements there, three hundred and twenty acres of land; and to the Ameri¬ 
can Baptist Union, to include the improvements where the superintendent of the school now 
resides, one hundred and sixty acres of land; and also five acres of land to the Shawnee 
Methodist Church, including the meeting-house and grave-yard; and two acres of land to the 
Shawnee Baptist Church, including the meeting-house and grave-yard.” 

The other articles of the treaty provide for the survey of these lands, and for 
granting two hundred acres to each Shawnee Indian, to be held as private property, 
subject to such conditions as Congress should impose, and recognise the right of 
the legislature to lay out roads and public highways across the Indian lands, on 
the same terms as the law provides for their location through the lands of citizens 
of the United States. The Rev. Thomas Johnson, who was president of the Kan¬ 
sas legislative council, and also agent of the missionary society of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, to which the lands and improvements belonged, authorized the 
legislature to use and occupy such portions of the buildings of which he held tlie 
lawful possession, as they should find convenient in ‘the exercise of their legislative 
functions. 

Upon a careful review and examination of all the facts, laws,- and treaties heal¬ 
ing upon the point, your committee are clearly of the opinion that the Shawnee 
manual-labor school was a place to which the legislature might lawfully adjourn 
and enact valid laws in pursuance of the organic act of the Territory. 

We do not deem it necessary to inquire into the expediency of the removal of 
the seat of government, for the reason that it cannot affect the validity of the 


17 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 

legislative proceedings. It is sufficient to state, that the reasons assigned by 
the governor against the expediency of the measure were: first, “ the loss of 
time (more valuable because limited) which our organic law allots to the 
legislative sessionand secondly, “ because it will involve a pecuniary loss, 
in view of the arrangements which have been made at this place for our 
accommodation.” As an offset to the unfortunate circumstance that the people of 
Kansas would be deprived, for the period of ten days, of all the advantages and 
protection which were expected to result from the wholesome laws which the gov¬ 
ernor had recommended them to enact upon all rightful subjects of legislation, 
and to the^pecuniary loss which would be sustained in consequence of the removal 
from Pawnee City, the members of the legislature, in their memorial to the Presi¬ 
dent of the United States,' asking him to remove the governor, state their reasons 
as follows, for the allegation that there w r as an unnecessar)^ loss of three months’ 
time after the election in convening the legislature, and that Pawnee was not a 
suitable place for them to meet: 

“After the contest was over, and the result known, he delayed the assembling of the body 
until the 2d day of July—more than three months afterwards—and that, too, when the whole 
Union was convulsed on account of alleged outrages in Kansas Territory, and yet no law for 
the punishment or prevention of them. When at last they did meet, upon the call of the gov¬ 
ernor, at a point where, they had previously, in an informal manner, protested against being 
called, with an avowal of their intention to adjourn to the point at which they are now as- 
S(?mbled, for the reasons that the requisite accommodations could not be had: where there 
were no facilities for communication with their families or constituents; where they could not 
even find the commonest food to eat, unless at an enormous expense, there being no gardens 
yet made by the squatters; where the house in which we were expected to assemble had no 
roof or floor on the Saturday preceding the Monday of our assembling, and for the completion 
of which the entire Sabbath day and night was desecrated by the continual labor of the me¬ 
chanics ; where, at least, one-half of the members, employees, and almost all others who had 
assembled there for business or otherwise, had to camp out in wagons and tents during a 
rainy, hot season, and where cholera broke out, as a consequence of the inadequate food and 
chelter; and when, under all of these circumstances of annoyance, they finally passed an act 
adjourning to this point, Shawnee manual-labor school, where ample accommodations are 
provided, and where the governor himself had previously made it the seat of government, 
they were met by his veto, which is herewith transmitted.” 

Your committee have not considered it any part of tbeir duty to examine and 
review each enactment and provision of the large volume of laws adopted by the 
legislature of Kansas upon almost every rightful subject of legislation, and affecting 
nearly every relation and interest in life, with a view either to their approval or 
disapproval by Congress, for the reason that they are' local law r s, confined in their 
operation to the internal concerns of the Territory, the control and management of 
which, by the principles of the federal constitution, as well as by the very terms of 
the Kansas Nebraska act, are confided to the people of the Territory, to be deter¬ 
mined by themselves through their representatives in their local legislature, and 
not by the Congress, in which they have no representatives, to give or withhold 
their assent to the laws upon which their rights and liberties may all depend. 
Under these laws marriages have taken place, children have been born, deaths have 
occurred, estates have been distributed, contracts have been made, and rights have 
accrued w r hich it is not competent for Congress to divest. If there can be a doubt 
in respect to the validity of these laws, growing out of the alleged irregularity of 
the election of the members of the legislature, or the lawfulness.of the place where 
its sessions were held, which it is competent for any tribunal to inquire into, with a 
view to its decision at this day, and after the series of events which have ensued, it 
must be a judicial question, over which Congress can have no control, and which 
can be determined only by the courts of justice, under the protection and sanction 
of the constitution. 

When it w'as proposed in the last Congress to annul the acts of the legislative 
assembly of Minnesota, incorporating certain railroad companies, this committee 
reported against the proposition, and, instead of annulling the local legislation of 
the Territory, recommended the repeal of that clause of the organic act of Minne¬ 
sota which reserves to Congress the right to disapprove its laws. That reeomr 


18 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 


mendation was based on the theory that^the people of the Territory, being citizens 
of the United States, were entitled to the privilege of self-government in obedience 
to the constitution; and if, in the exercise of this right, they had made wise and 
just laws, they ought to be permitted to enjoy all the advantages resulting from 
them; while, on the contrary, if they had made unwise and unjust laws, they 
should abide the consequences of their own acts until they discovered, acknow¬ 
ledged, and corrected their errors. 

It has been alleged that gross misrepresentations have been made in respect to 
the character of the laws enacted by the legislature of Kansas, calculated, if not 
designed, to prejudice the public mind at a distance against those who enacted 
them, and to create the impression that it was the duty of Congress to interfere 
and annul them. In view of the violent and insurrectionary measures which were 
being taken to resist the laws of the Territory, a convention of delegates, repre¬ 
senting almost every portion of the Territory of Kansas, was held at the city of 
Leavenworth on the 14th of November, 1855, at which men of all shades of po¬ 
litical opinions, “Whigs, Democrats, Pro-slavery men, and Free-state men, all met 
and harmonized together, and forgot their former differences in the common dan¬ 
ger that seemed to threaten the peace, good order, and prosperity of this commu¬ 
nity.” This convention was presided over by the governor of* the Territory, as¬ 
sisted by a majority of the judges of the supreme court; and the address to the 
citizens of the United States, among other distinguished names, bears the signa¬ 
tures of the United States district attorney and marshal for the Territory. 

It is but reasonable to assume that the interpretation which these functionaries 
have given to the acts of the Kansas legislature in this address will be observed in 
their official exposition and execution of the same. In reference to the wide¬ 
spread perversions and misrepresentations of those laws, this address says: 

“ The laws passed by the legislature have been most grossly misrepresented, with the view 
of prejudicing the public against that body, and as an excuse for the revolutionary move¬ 
ments in this Territory. The limits of this address will not permit a correction of all these 
misrepresentations; but we will notice some of them that have had the most wide-spread cir¬ 
culation. 

“ It has been charged and widely circulated that the legislature, in order to perpetuate their 
rule, had passed a law prescribing the qualification of voters, by which it is declared 1 that 
any one may vote who will swear allegiance to the fugitive slave law, the Kansas and Ne¬ 
braska bill, and pay one dollar.’ Such is declared to be the evidence of citizenship, such the 
qualification of voters. In reply, to this, we say that no such law was ever passed by the le¬ 
gislature. The law prescribing the qualification of voters expressly provides that, to entitle 
a person to vote, he must be twenty-one years of age, an actual inhabitant of this Territory, 
and of the county or district in which he offers to vote, and shall have paid a Territorial tax. 
There is no law requiring him to pay a dollar-tax as a qualification to vote. He must pay a 
tax, it is true, (and this is by no means an unusual requirement in tiie States; but whether 
this tax is levied on his personal or real property, his money at interest, or as a poll-tax, makes 
no difference; the payment of any Territorial tax entitles the person to vote, provided he has 
the other qualifications provided by law. The act seems to be carefully drawn, with the view 
of excluding all illegal and foreign votes. The voter must be an inhabitant of the Territory, 
and of the county or district in which he offers to vote, and he must have paid a Territorial 
tax. The judges and clerks are required to be sworn, and to keep duplicate poll-boxes; and 
ample provision is made for contesting elections, and purging the polls of all illegal votes. It 
is difficult to see how a more guarded law could be framed, for the purpose of protecting the 
purity of elections and the sanctity of the ballot-box. The law does not require the voter to 
swear to support the fugitive slave law or the Kansas and Nebraska bill, unless he is chal¬ 
lenged ; in that case, he is required to take an oath to support each of these laws. As to the 
dollar law, (so called,) it is merely a poll-tax, and has no more connexion with the right of 
suffrage than any other tax levied by the Territorial authority, and is to be paid whether the 
party votes or not. It is a mere temporary measure, having no force beyond this year, and 
was resorted to as such to supply the Territorial treasury with the necessary means to carry 
on the government. 

“ It has also been charged against the legislature that they elected all of the officers of the 
Territory for six years. This i3 without any foundation. They elected no officer for six 
years; and the only civil officers they retain the election of, that occurs to us at present, are 
the auditor and treasurer of state, and the district attorneys, who hold their offices for four, 
and not six years. By the organic act, the commissions issued by the governor to the civil 
officers of the Territory all expired on the adjournment of the legislature. To prevent a fail- 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 


19 


Tire in the local administration, and from necessity, the legislature made a number of tempo¬ 
rary appointments, such as probate judge, and two county commissioners, and a sheriff of 
each county. The probate judge and county commissioners constitute the tribunal for the 
transaction of county business, and are invested with the power to appoint justices of the 
peace, constables, county surveyor, recorder, and clerk, &c. Probate judges, county commis¬ 
sioners, sheriffs, &c., are all temporary appointments, and are made elective by the people at 
the first annual election in 185?. The legislature could not have avoided meeting some tem¬ 
porary appointments. No election could have been held without them. There were no 
judges, justices of the peace, or other officers to conduct an election of any kind, until ap¬ 
pointed by the legislature. It was the exercise of a power which the first legislative assembly 
in every Territory must, of necessity, exercise, in order to put the local government in motion. 
We see nothing in this to justify revolution or a resort to force. The law for the protection 
of slave property has also been much misunderstood. The right to pass such a law is ex¬ 
pressly stated by Governor Reeder in his inaugural message, in which he says: ‘A Territorial 
legislature may undoubtedly act upon the question to a limited and partial extent, and may 
temporarily prohibit, tolerate, or regulate slavery in the Territory, and in an absolute or 
modified form, with all the force and effect of any other legislative act, binding until repealed 
by the same power that enacted it.’ There is nothing in the act itself, as has been charged, to 
prevent a free discussion of the subject of slavery. Its bearing on society, its morality or ex¬ 
pediency, or whether it would be politic or impolitic to make this a slave State, can be dis¬ 
cussed here as freely as in any State in this Union, without infringing any of the provisions 
of the law. To deny the right of a person to hold slaves under the law in this Territory is 
made penal; but beyond this, there is no restriction to the discussion of the slavery question, 
in any aspect in which it is capable of being considered. We do not wish to be understood 
as approving of all the laws passed by the legislature; on the contrary, we would state that 
there are some that we do not approve of, and which are condemned by public opinion here, 
and which will no doubt be repealed or modified at the meeting of the next legislature. But 
this is nothing more than what frequently occurs, both in the legislation of Congress and of the 
various State legislatures. The remedy for such evils is to be found in public opinion, to which, 
sooner or later, in a government like ours, all laws must conform.” 

A few days after Governor Reeder dissolved his official relations with the legis¬ 
lature, on account of the removal of the seat of government, and while that body 
was still in session, a meeting was called by “many voters,” to assemble at Law¬ 
rence on the 14th or 15th of August, 1855, “to take into consideration the pro¬ 
priety of calling a Territorial convention, preliminary to the formation of a State 
government, and other subjects of public interest.” At that meeting the follow¬ 
ing preamble and resolutions were adopted with but one dissenting voice: 


“ Whereas the people of Kansas Territory have been since its settlement, and now are, with¬ 
out any law-making power: therefore, . .. , . 

“ Be it resolved, , That we, the people of Kansas Territory, in mass meeting assembled, irre¬ 
spective of party distinctions, influenced by a common necessity, and greatly desirous ot pro¬ 
moting the common good, do hereby call upon and request all bona-fide citizens of Kansas 
Territory, of whatever political views or predilections, to consult together in their respective 
election districts, and, in mass convention or otherwise, elect three delegates for each repre¬ 
sentative of the legislative assembly, by proclamation of Governor Reeder of date 10th March, 
1855; said delegates to assemble in convention at the town of Topeka, on the 19th^day of 
September, 1855, then and there to consider and determine upon all subjects of P ubll ° 1! J te 
est, and particularly upon that having reference to the speedy formation of a State cons t - 
tion, with an intention of an immediate application to be admitted as a State into the Union 
of the United States of America.” 

This meeting, so far as your committee have been able to ascertain, was the first 
step in that series of proceedings which resulted in the adoption of a constitution 
and State government, to be put in operation on the 4th of the present month, m 
subversion of the Territorial government established under the authority °i Con¬ 
gress. The right to set up the State government in defiance of the constituted 
authorities of the Territory, is based on the assumption “that the people of Kan¬ 
sas Territory have been since its settlement, and now are, without any law-making 
power:” in the face of the well-known fact, that the Territorial legislature were 
then in session, in pursuance of the proclamation of Governor Reeder ai J 
organic law of the Territory. On the 5th ot September, a ‘Territorial delegate 
convention” assembled at the Big Springs “to take into consideration le prae 
exigencies of political afl'airsat whieh, among others, the following resolutions 

were adopted: 


20 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 


u Resolved , That this convention, in view of its recent repudiation of the acts of the so- 
called Kansas legislative assembly, respond most heartily to the call made by the people’s 
convention of the 14th ultimo, for a delegate convention of the people of Kansas, to be held at 
Topeka on the 19th instant, to consider the propriety of the formation of a State constitu¬ 
tion, and such matters as may legitimately come before it. 

“ Resolved , That we owe no allegiance or obedience to the tyrannical enactments of this 
tepurious legislature; that their laws have no validity or binding'force upon the people of 
Kansas; and that every fre’eman among us is at full liberty, consistently with his obligations 
as a citizen and a man, to defy and resist .them if he choose so to do. 

“ Resolved , That we will endure and submit to these laws no longer than the best interests 
of the Territory require, as the least of two evils, and will resist them to a bloody issue as 
soon as we ascertain that peaceable remedies shall fail, and forcible resistance shall furnish 
any reasonable prospect of success; and that in the meantime we recommend to our friends 
throughout the Territory the organization and discipline of volunteer companies, and the pro¬ 
curement and preparation of arms.” 

With the view to a distinct understanding of the meaning of so much of this 
resolution as relates to the “ organization and discipline of volunteer companies, 
and the procurement and preparation of arms,” it may be necessary to state that 
there was at that time existing in the Territory a secret, military organization, 
which had been formed for political objects prior to the alleged invasion, at the 
election on the 30th of March, and which held its first “grand encampment at 
Lawrence, February 8th, 1855.” Your committee have been put in possession of 
a small printed pamphlet,-containing the “constitution and ritual of the grand 
encampment and regimenti of the Kansas legion of Kansas Territory, adopted 
April 4th, 1855,” which, during the recent disturbances in that Territory, was taken 
on the person of one George Warren, who attempted to conceal and destroy the 
same by thrusting it into his mouth, and biting and chewing it. Although some¬ 
what mutilated by the “tooth* prints,” it bears internal evidence of being a genuine 
document, authenticated by the original signatures of “ G. W. Hutchinson, grand 
general,” and “J. K. Goodwin, grand quartermaster.” On the last page was a 
charter of the Kansas legion, authorziing the said George Warren, from whose 
mouth the document was taken, to form a new regiment, as follows: 

“ Charter of the Kansas Legion. 

u United States of America, \ 

Territory of Kansas. f 

“ Know all men by these presents, that we, the Grand Encampment of the Kansas Legien of 
Kansas Territory, have created, chartered, and empowered, and by these presents do create, 

charter, and empower George F. Warren to be regiment-, 

No.-, of the Kansas Legion; and, as such, they are hereby invested with all and singular 

the authority and privileges with which each and every regiment is invested, working under 
a charter from the Grand Encampment. 

“ In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands this sixteenth day of August, one 
thousand eight hundred and fifty-five. 

“ G. W. HUTCHINSON, 

“ Grand General. 

“J. K. GOODWIN, 

“ Grand Quartermaster J 1 

The constitution consists of six articles regulating the organization of the “ Grand 
Encampment,” which is “ composed of representatives elected from each subordi¬ 
nate regiment existing in the Territory, as hereafter provided. The officers of the 
Grand Encampment shall consist of a Grand General, Grand Vice General, Grand 
Quartermaster, Grand Paymaster, Grand Aid, two Grand Sentinels, and Grand 
Chaplain. 

“ The Grand Encampment shall make all nominations for Territorial officers at large, and 
immediately after such nominations shall have been made, the Grand General shall communi¬ 
cate the result to every regiment in the Territory.” 

The officers of the “ Grand Encampment” are Grand General Rev. G. W. Hutch¬ 
inson, Lawrence, K. T. 

Grand Vice-General, C. K. Holliday, Topeka, K. T. 




AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 


21 


Grand Quartermaster, J. K. Goodwin, Lawrence, K. T. 

Gran-.l Paymaster, Charles Leib, M. D., Leavenworth city, K. T. 

By “ the constitution of the subordinate encampment,” “ the officers of each 
subordinate regiment shall consist of a colonel, a lieutenant colonel, a quartermas¬ 
ter, aid, and two sentinels. The regiment located in each and every election dis¬ 
trict shall make nominations for all candidates for offices in their respective dis¬ 
tricts ; but where there shall be two or more regiments in any one election district, 
of whatever kind, these nominations shall be made by delegates from the respective 
encampments within said district'.” 

The “ritual” continues the order of business and modes of proceeding in the 
subordinate encampment under the following heads : 

1st. Pleading the minutes by the quartermaster. 

2d. Proposals for new recruits. 

3d. Voting for same. 

4th. Initiation of recruits. 

5th'. Reports of committees. 

6 th. Unfinished business appearing on the minutes. 

7th. Miscellaneous business. 

8th. Adjournment. 

The “opening ceremony” of the subordinate encampments is as follows : 

“ The colonel, lieutenant-colonel, quartermaster, paymaster, aid, and sentinels, being in their 
respective places, the regiment shall be called and thus addressed by the colonel: 

“ Colonel. Fellow-soldiers in the free-State army: The’hour has arrived when we must re¬ 
sume the duties devolving upon us. Let us each, with a heart devoted to justice, patriotism, and 
liberty, attend closely to all the regulations laid down for our government and action ; each 
laboring to make this review pleasant and profitable to ourselves, and a blessing to our coun¬ 
try. Aid, are the sentinels at their posts, with closed doors? 

“ Aid. They are. 

“ Colonel. Aid, you will now review the troops in the regiment’s passwords. 

“ Aid. (After examination.) I have examined them personally, and find each correct. 

“ Colonel. I pronounce this regiment arrayed and ready for service.” 


Then follow the process of initiating new recruits, wffio are properly vouched for 
by members of the order, the preliminary obligations to observe secrecy, the cate¬ 
chism to which the candidate is subjected, and the explanations of the colonel in 
respect to the objects of the order, which are thus stated : 

“First, to secure to Kansas the blessing and prosperity of being a free State; and, secondly 
to protect the ballot-box from the leprous touch op unprincipled men.” 

These and all other questions being satisfactorily answered, the final oath is thus 
administered : 

“ With these explanations upon our part, we shall ask of you that you take with us an obli¬ 
gation placing yourself in the same attitude as before. 


“ obligation. 


in the most solemn manner, here, in the presence of Heaven and these 


witnesses, bind myself that I will never reveal r nor cause to be revealed, either by word, Iook, 
or sign, by writing, printing, engraving, painting, or in any manner whatsoever, anything per¬ 
taining to this institution, save to persons duly qualified to receive the same. I will never re¬ 
veal the nature of the organization, the place of meeting, the fact that any person is a mem¬ 
ber of the same, or even the existence of the organization, except to persons legally qualified 
to receive the same. Should I at. any time withdraw, or be suspended or expelled from this 
organization, I will keep this obligation to the end of life. ^ . an 7 P a P« rs > or “<meys 

befonging to this organization be intrusted to my care or keeping, I will faithfully and com¬ 
pletely deliver up the same to my successor in office, or any one legally authorized to receive 
them. I will never knowingly propose a person for membership in this order who is not in 
favor of making Kansas a free State , and whom I feel satisfied will exert his entire influence 
to bring about this result. I will support, maintain, and abide by any honorable movement 
made by the organization to secure this great end, which will mot conflict with the laws oi 
the country and the constitution of the United States. I will unfliachingly vote for and sup¬ 
port the candidates nominated by this organization in preference to any and all others. 



22 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 


“ To all of this obligation I do most solemnly promise and affirm, binding myself under the 
penalty of being expelled from this organization, of having my name published to the several 
Territorial encampments as a perjurer before Heaven and a traitor to my country, of passing 
through life scorned and reviled by man, frowned on by devils, forsaken by angels, and aban¬ 
doned by God” 

The “ closing ceremony” is as follows: 

“[CoZoneZ.] Fellow-soldiers: I trust this review has been both pleasant and profitable to 
all. We met as friends; let us part as brothers, remembering that we seek no wrong to any; 
and our bond of union in battling for the right must tend to make us better men, better neigh¬ 
bors, and better citizens. We thank you for your kindness and attention, and invite you all 

ko be present at our next review, to be holden at-, on -next, at —— o’clock 

p. m. Sentinels, you will open the doors, that our soldiers may retire pleasantly and in order.” 

Your committee have deemed it important to give this outline of the “constitu¬ 
tion and ritual of the grand encampment and regiments of the Kansas legion,” as 
constituting the secret organization, political and military, in obedience to which 
the public demonstrations have been made to subvert the authority of the Terri¬ 
torial government established by Congress, by setting up a State government, either 
with or without the assent of Congress, as circumstances should determine. The 
endorsement of this military organization, and the recommendation by the Big 
Springs convention for “the procurement and preparation of arms,” accompanied 
with • the distinct declaration that we “will resist them [the laws enacted by the 
Kansas legislature] to a bloody issue, as soon as we ascertain that peaceable reme¬ 
dies shall fail, and forcible resistance shall furnish any reasonable prospect of suc¬ 
cess,” would seem to admit of no other interpretation than that, in the event that 
the courts of justice shall sustain the validity of those laws, and Congress shall 
refuse to admit Kansas as a State with the constitution to be formed at Topeka, 
they will set up an independent government in defiance of the federal authority. 

The same purpose is clearly indicated by the other proceedings of this conven¬ 
tion, in which it is declared that “ we with scorn repudiate the election-law, so 
called,” and they nominate Governor Reeder for Congress, to be voted for on a differ¬ 
ent day from that authorized by law, at an election to be held by judges and clerks 
not appointed in pursuance of any legal authority, and not to be sworn by any 
person authorized by law to administer oaths; and the returns to be made, and 
result proclaimed, and certificate granted, in a mode and by persons not permitted 
to perform these acts by any law, in or out of the Territory. 

In accepting the nomination, Governor Reeder addressed the convention as fol¬ 
lows ; and among other things, said: 

“ In giving him this nomination in this manner, they had strengthened his arms to do their 
work, and, in return, he would now pledge to them a steady, unflinching, pertinacity of 
purpose, never-tiring industry, dogged perseverance, and, in all the abilities with which God 
had endowed him, to the righting of their wrong3, and the final triumph of their cause. He 
believed, from the circumstances which had for the last eight months surrounded him, and 
which at the same time placed in his possession many facts, and bound him, heart and soul, 
to the oppressed voters of Kansas, that he could do much towards obtaining a redress of their 
grievances. 

u He said that, day by. day, a crisis was coming upon us; that, in after-times, this would be 
to posterity a turning-point, a marked period, as are to us the opening of the Revolution, the 
adoption of the Declaration of Independence, and the era of the alien and sedition laws ; that 
we should take each carefully, so that each be a step of progress, and so that no violence be 
done to the tie which binds the American people together. He alluded to the unprecedented 
tyranny under which we are and have been; and said that, if any one supposed that institu¬ 
tions were to be imposed by force upon a free and enlightened people, they never knew, or 
had forgotten, the history of our fathers. American citizens bear in their breasts too much 
of the spirit of other and trying days, and have lived too long amid the blessings of liberty to 
submit to oppression from any quarter ; and the man who, having once been free, could tamely 
submit to tyranny, was fit to be a slave. 

“He urged the Free-State men of Kansas to forget all minor issues, and pursue determinedly 
the one great object, never swerving, but steadily pressing on, as did the wise men who fol¬ 
lowed the star to the manger, looking back only for fresh encouragement. He counselled 
that peaceful resistance be made to the tyrannical and unjust laws of the spurious legislature; 
that appeals to the eourts, to the ballot-box, and to Congress, be made for relief from this op- 




AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 


23 


nti hn’Mf t sbould be deprecated as long as a single hope of peaceable redress 

?’ f b - fc /’ 1 la f> al l thes ® should fail—if, m the proper tribunals, there is no hope for 
re/nlf'rSLc 7?^^ f nd profaned—if we are still to suffer, that corrupt men may 
+l tb watered b F our tears—then there is one more chance for justice. God has pro- 
(rj’ 11 ! the eteraal frame of tbln gs, redress for every wrong; and there remains to us still 
the steady eye and the strong arm, and we must conquer, or mingle the bodies of the oppres¬ 
sors with those of the oppressed upon the soil which the Declaration of Independence no longer 
protects. But he was not at all apprehensive that such a crisis would ever arrive. He be¬ 
lieved that justice might be found far short of so dreadful an extremity ; and, even should as 

appeal to arms come, it was his opinion, that if we are well prepared, that moment the victory 
is won. 3 


In pursuance o! the recommendation of the mass meeting held at Lawrence on 
the 14th of August, and endorsed by the convention held at the Big Springs on the 
5th and 6th of September, a convention was held at Topeka on the 19th and 20th 
of September, at which it was determined to hold another convention at the same 
place on the fourth Tuesday ot October, for the purpose of forming a constitution 
and State government; and to this end such proceedings were had as were deemed 
necessary for giving the notices conducting the election of delegates, making tlp 3 
returns, and assembling the convention. With regard to the regularity of "these 
proceedings, your committee see no necessity for further criticism other than is to 
be found in the fact that it was the movement of a political party instead of the 
whole body of the people of Kansas, conducted without the sanction of law, and in 
defiance of the constituted authorities, for the avowed purpose of overthrowing the 
Territorial government established by Congress. 

The constitutional convention met at Topeka on the fourth Tuesday of October, 
and organized by electing Colonel J. LI. Lane president, who, in returning his 
acknowledgements for the honor, repudiated the validity of the Territorial legisla¬ 
ture and its acts in these words: 


“Gentlemen of the convention: For the position assigned me, accept my thanks. You have 
met, gentlemen, on no ordinary occasion, to accomplish no ordinary purpose. You are the 
first legal representatives the real settlers of Kansas have ever had. You comprise the first 
legally elected representative body ever assembled in the Territory,” &c. 

“ Friday , October 26.—Mr. Smith offered the following resolution, instructing the standing 
committees: 

“ Resolved , That the various committees of this convention be, and they are hereby, in¬ 
structed to frame their work, having in view an immediate organization of a State government.” 

“ October 30.—In the evening session the debates ran high upon Mr. Smith’s resolution in 
reference to an immediate State organization. The t movei> of the resolution was in favor of 
electing State officers at once. Hewould advise no hesitation ; he would present a bold front, 
and waver not at all. The Territory was without laws; life and property were unprotected. 
The Territorial government had broken down. Fie would not leave it an hour for the action 
of Congress after an application for admission, hut would set up an independent form of gov¬ 
ernment,” &c. 

Mr. Emery said: “Now, Mr. Chairman, what does thi3 resolution contemplate? What is 
proposed to be done ? It first proposes to supersede the present weak and inefficient Territo¬ 
rial government, and hence it enunciates the fundamental idea of the constitutional movement. 
Ay, it does more. It proposes to prove into a fact the leading idea of the Declaration of Inde¬ 
pendence, the highest human authority in American politics, which is this: whenever any form 
of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted, it is the right of 
the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government. It proposes to force 
theories of human rights into facts, to practically apply this great principle to the wants and 
the necessities of the down-trodden people of Kansas. I do not question this right of the 
people, and certainly no gentleman on this floor will disagree with me. If he does, he occu¬ 
pies a most extraordinary position, and consistency would suggest that he withdraw from this 
body. No, when we say that we will take measures to supersede and render unnecessary that 
thing now extended over us called a Territorial government—when we say and maintain that 
we have a right, guarantied by the constitution, to have a form of government resting on 
our own consent and free will, we are doing what, as American citizens, we have a right to 
5o; we only propose to carry out the doctrine, much abused and grossly misrepresented as it 
has been—1 mean the doctrine of squatter sovereignty, under which we are assembled here to¬ 
day, and in pursuance of the principles of which we hope to extricate ourselves from our pres¬ 
ent unhappy condition.” 

It is but just to state, that, in another part of this same speech, Mr. Emery de¬ 
clared himself opposed to an immediate election “under the new constitution, and 


24 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 

an immediate session of the general assembly, when all the wheels of State gov¬ 
ernment shall be put in motion, irrespective of the action of Congress, upon 
due application for admission. Mr. E. presented his objections to the position 
of Mr. Smith, and maintained the views above indicated. He contended that, in¬ 
asmuch as the Territorial form of government was recognised by the Supreme 
Court of the United States, and hence a legal form of government, no other gov¬ 
ernment could be substituted so long as that was in existence, without risking the 
most serious consequences, to say the least.” 

In reply to the advocates of immediate State organization, Mr Dblahay, of 
Leavenworth, said: 

“Under the defined rights of squatter sovereignty, as enunciated by the Kansas-Nebraska 
act, it seems reasonable that the people have the right to take upon themselves the burdens of 
a government; but I question the right of the people of Kansas to organize a new govern¬ 
ment created by Congress. The gentleman from Lawrence [Colonel Lane] has assumed as a 
fundamental position, in advocating an immediate State organization, that neither govern¬ 
ment nor local law exists in this Territory. Sir, I must dissent from that position. I deny, 
Mr. Chairman, that a Territorial government can be legally abolished by the election of 
another government. I hold, on the contrary, and I think that my position would be sup¬ 
ported by our highest legal authorities, that the power of a Territorial government ceases only 
by the enactment of the body which created it; in other words, that the government and laws 
of Kansas can be abolished by Congress alone, and are beyond the reach of this Territory, or any 
other power. I do not pretend to deny that, as all civil power is derived from the people, they 
have the moral right to abolish unjust laws, or to overthrow obnoxious governments by force; 
but I do question the expediency of effecting a reform in Kansas by any overtact of rebellion. 
For I must confess, Mr. Chairman, while I cast not the shadow of suspicion on the motives of 
the advocates of this measure, that from the point of view from which I regard this question, 
it appears to me to be an act of rebellion.” 

Your committee have made these voluminous extracts from the best authenti¬ 
cated report's which they have been able to obtain ot the proceedings of the con¬ 
vention, lor the purpose of showing that it was distinctly understood on all sides 
that the adoption of the proposition for organizing the State government before the 
assent of Congress for the admission of the State should be obtained, was a de¬ 
cision in favor of repudiating the laws and overthrowing the Territorial govern¬ 
ment, in defiance of the authority of Congress. By this decision, as incorporated 
into the schedule to the constitution, the vote on the ratification to the constitution 
waste be held on the loth of December, 1855, and the election for all State 
officers on the third Tuesday of January, 1856. The third section of the schedule 
is as follows: 

“The general assembly shall meet on the 4th day of March, A. D. 1856, at the city of To¬ 
peka, at 12 m., at which time and place the governor, lieutenant-governor, secretary of state, 
judges of supreme court, treasurer, auditor, State printer, reporter and clerk of supreme court, 
and attorney general, shall appear, take the oath of office, and enter upon the discharge of the 
duties of their respective offices under this constitution; and shall continue in office in the 
game manner, and during the same period, they would have done had they been elected on 
the first Monday of August, A. D. 1856.” 

The elections for all these officers were held at the times specified; and on the 
fourth day of the present month the new government was to have been put in opera¬ 
tion, in conflict with the Territorial government established by Congress, and for 
the avowed purpose of subverting and overthrowing the same, without reference to 
the action of Congress upon their application for admission into the Union. 

Your committee are not aware of any case in the history of our own country 
which can be fairly cited as an example, much less a justification, for these, extra¬ 
ordinary proceedings. Cases have occurred in which the inhabitants of particular 
Territories have been permitted to form constitutions, and take the initiatory steps 
for the organization of State governments, preparatory to their admission into the 
Union, without obtaining the previous assent of Congress; but in every instance 

THE PROCEEDING HAS ORIGINATED WITH,AND BEEN CONDUCTED IN SUBORDINATION TO, 
THE AUTHORITY OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ESTABLISHED OR RECOGNISED BY THE 

government of the United S tates. Michigan, Arkansas, Florida, and California, 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 


25 


are sometimes cited as cases in point. Michigan was erected into a Territory in pur- 
suaiice of the ordinance of the 13th of July, 1 /78V, as recognised and carried into 
ettect by acts of Congress subsequent to the adoption of the federal constitution. In 
that ordinance it was provided that the Territory northwest of the Ohio river should 
be dwided into not less than three nor raore than five States; “and whenever any of 
said States shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such State shall be 
. admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal 
tooting wi«T the original States in all respects whatever, and shall be at liberty to 
form a permanent constitution and State government.” 

In pursuance of this provision of their organic law, the legislature of the Terri¬ 
tory of Michigan passed an act providing for a convention of the people to form a 
constitution and State government, which was accordingly done in obedience to 
the laws and constituted authorities of the Territory. The legislature of the Terri¬ 
tory of Arkansas, having ascertained by a census that the Territory contained 
abofit fifty-one thousand eight hundred inhabitants, at a time when the ratio of rep¬ 
resentation in Congress awarded one representative to each forty-seven thousand 
seven hundred inhabitants, passed an act authorizing the people to form a consti¬ 
tution and ask for admission into the Union, as they supposed they had a right to 
do uaaer the treaty acquiring the territory from France, which guarantied their 
admission as soon as may be consistent with the federal constitution. Upon this 
point your committee adopt the legal opinion of the Attorney General of the 
United States, (B. F. Butler,) as expressed in the following extract: 

“But I am not prepared to say that all proceedings on this subject, on the part of the cit- 
zens of Arkansas, will be illegal. They undoubtedly possess the ordinary privileges and im¬ 
munities of citizens of the United States. Among these, is the right to assemble and to peti¬ 
tion the government for the redress of grievances; in the exercise of this right, the inhabitants 
of Arkansas may peaceably meet together in primary assemblies, or in conventions chosen by 
such assemblies, for the purpose of petitioning Congress to abrogate the Territorial govern¬ 
ment, and to admit them into the Union as an independent State. The particular form which 
they may give to their petition cannot be material, so long as they confine themselves to the 
mere right of petitioning, and conduct all their proceedings in a peaceable manner. And as 
the power of Congress over the whole subject is plenary and unlimited, they may accept any 
constitution, however framed, which in their judgment meets the sense of the people to be 
affected by it. If, therefore, the citizens of Arkansas think proper to accompany their petition 
with a written constitution, framed and agreed on by their primary assemblies, or by a con¬ 
vention of delegates chosen by such assemblies, I perceive no legal objection to their power to 
do so, nor to any measures which may be taken to collect the sense of the people in respect to 
it; provided, always, that such measures be commenced and prosecuted in a peaceable manner, 
in strict subordination to the existing Territorial government, and in entire subserviency to 
the power of Congress to adopt, reject, or disregard them, at their pleasure. 

“ It is, however, very obvious, that all measures commenced and prosecuted with a design 
to subvert the Territorial government, and to establish and put in force in its place a new 
government, without the consent of Congress, will be unlawful. The laws establishing the 
Territorial government must continue in force until abrogated by Congress; and, in the mean¬ 
time, it will be the duty of the governor, and of all the Territorial officers, as well as of the 
President, to take care that they are faithfully executed.” 

On the 11th day of January, 1839, a committee of the constitutional convention 
of Florida addressed a memorial to Congress, in which they state that in 1837 the 
Territorial council passed a law submitting to the people the question of “ State” or 
“ Territory,” to be decided at the election of delegate to Congress in the month of 
May of that year; that a decided majority of the suffrages given at that election 
was in favor of “State;” that the legislative council of. 1838, in obedience to the 
expressed wdshes of the people, enacted a law authorizing the holding of a con¬ 
vention to form and adopt a Slate constitution; that the convention assembled on 
the 3d of December, 1838, and continued in session until the 11th of January, 
1839 ; and that, on behalf of the people of Florida, they transmit the “constitu¬ 
tion, or form of government,” and ask for admission into the Union. It is also 
stated in the memorial that in 1838 a census of the Territory was taken, in obe¬ 
dience to a law passed by the Territorial council, and that this census, although 
taken during the ravages* of Indian hostilities, when a large portion of the iuhab- 


26 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS, 


itants could not bo found at home, showed an aggregate population of forty-eight 
thousand two hundred and twenty-three persons, which the memorialists insisted 
furnished satisfactory assurance of a sufficient population to entitle them to ad¬ 
mission, according to the treaty acquiring the country from Spain, and the then 
ratio of representation, which awarded a member of Congress to each 47,700 
inhabitants. Congress failing to yield its assent to the admission of Florida for 
more than six years after this constitution was formed and application made, the peo¬ 
ple of Florida during all that period remained loyal to the Territorial government and 
obedient to its laws, and did not assume the right to supersede the existing govern¬ 
ment by putting into operation a State government until tide assent of Congress was 
obtained in 1845. 

The circumstances connected with the formation of the constitution and Stale 
government of California are peculiar. During the Mexican war the country was 
conquered and occupied by our troops, and the civil government was administered 
by the military authorities under the war power. iVccording to an official communi¬ 
cation of General Persifor F. Smith, acting governor of California, to a committee, 
of citizens of San Francisco, under date of March 27,1849, withholding his “ recog¬ 
nition and concurrence” in their proposition “ to organize a legislative assembly, 
and to appoint judges and other ministerial officers, and to enact suitable laws to 
establish .principles of justice and equity, and to give protection to life, liberty, and 
property,” it appears that the President of the United States (Mr. Polk) and 
his cabinet officially promulgated the following opinions as the decision of the 
Executive on the points stated : 

1st. That at the conclusion of the treaty with Mexico, on the 30th of May, 1848, 
the military government existing in California was a government de facto. 

2d. That it, of necessity, continue until Congress provide another ; because, if it 
©ease, anarchy must ensue : thus inferring that no power but Congress can estab¬ 
lish any government. 

It also appears, from the proclamation of General Riley, acting governor, to the 
people of California, dated June 3d, 1849, that a government dc facto was consti¬ 
tuted as follows: 

“A brief summary pf the organization of the present government may not be uninteresting. 
It consists—First, of a governor appointed by the supreme government; in default of such 
appointment, the office is temporarily vested in the commanding military officer of the depart¬ 
ment. The powers and duties of the governor are of a limited character, but fully defined 
and pointed out by the laws. Second, a secretary, whose duties and powers are also properly 
defined. Third, a territorial or departmental legislature, with limited powers to pass laws of 
a local character. Fourth, a superior court (tribunal superior) of the Territory, consisting of 
four judges and a fiscal. Fifth, a prefect and sub-prefects for each district, who are charged 
with the preservation of the public order and the execution of the laws; their duties corres¬ 
pond, in a great measure, with those of district marshals and sheriffs. Sixth, a judge of first 
instance, for each district. Thfs office is, by a custom not inconsistent with the laws, vested 
in the first alcalde of the district. Seventh, alcaldes, who have concurrent jurisdiction among 
themselves in the same district, but are subordinate to the higher judicial tribunals. Eighth, 
local justices of the peace. Ninth, ayuntamientos, or town councils. The powers and func¬ 
tions of all these officers are fully defined in the laws of the country, and are almost identical 
with those of the corresponding officers in the Atlantic and Western States.” 

On the 3d of April, 1849, President Taylor appointed Thomas Butler King agent, 
for the purpose of conveying important instructions to our military and naval com¬ 
manders who were intrusted with the administration of the civil government de 
facto in California, and to make known to the people his opinions and wishes in 
respect to the formation of a constitution and State government preparatory to 
their admission into the Union. What these opinions and wishes were, are dis¬ 
tinctly stated by the President in the following extract from his special message 
to Congress on the 23d of January, 1850: 

“I did not hesitate to express to the people of those Territories my desire that each Terri¬ 
tory should, if prepared to comply with the requisitions of the constitution of the United 
States, form a plan of a State constitution, and submit the same to Congress, with a prayer 
for admission into the Union as a State; but I did not anticipate, suggest, or authorize the 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 


27 


establishment of any such government without the assent of Congress; nor did I authorize 
^tfon ° r ° ffiCer t0 interfe F e >vith or exercise any influence or control over the 

t ons or anv of g ?h!\rnvv er ^ n . ventlon > in , raakiQ g <> r modifying their domestic institu¬ 
ting 7 *, the provi ^ on A s their proposed constitution. On the contrary, the instruc- 

fnrnL b i °^ d F s we > that all measures of domestic policy adopted by the people of Cali¬ 
fornia must originate solely with themselves; that, while the Executive of the United States 
pro J? ct the “ in ^e formation of any government republican in its character, 
to be at the proper time submitted to Congress, yet it was to be distinctlv understood that the 
plan of such a government must, at the same time, be the result of their 6wn deliberate choice 
and originate with themselves, without the interference of the Executive ” 


On the 30th of June, 1850, General Riley, in his capacity as civil governor of 
California, reports to the government at Washington that— 

“On the 3d instant I issued my proclamation to the people of California, defining what was 
understood to be the legal position of affairs here, and pointing out the course it was deemed 
advisable to pursue in order to procure a new political organization, better adapted to the 
character and present condition of the country. The course indicated in my proclamation 
will be adopted by the people, almost unanimously; and there is now little or no doubt that 
the convention will meet on the first of September next, and form a State constitution, to be 
submitted to Congress in the early part of the coming session. 

“ A few prefer a Territorial organization, but I think a majority will be in favor of a State 
government, so as to avoid all further difficulties respecting the question of slavery. This 
question will probably be submitted, together with the constitution, to a direct vote of the 
people, in order that the wishes of the people of California may be clearly and fully expressed. 
Of course, the constitution or plan of a Territorial government formed by this convention can 
have no legal force till approved by Congress.” 

On the 12th day of October, General Riley, acting governor, issued the following 
pioclamation: 


“ To the People of California. 

“ The delegates of the people, assembled in convention, have formed a constitution which is 
now presented for your ratification. The time and manner of voting on this constitution, and 
of holding the first general election, are clearly set forth in the schedule. The whole subject 
is therefore left for your unbiased and deliberate consideration. 

“ The prefect (or person exercising the functions of that office) of each district will designate 
the places for opening the polls, and give due notice of the election, in accordance with the 
provisions of the constitution and schedule. 

“The people are now called upon to form a government for themselves, and to designate 
such officers as they desire to make and execute the laws. ' That their choice may be wisely 
made, and that the government so organized may secure the permanent welfare and happi¬ 
ness of the people of the new State, is the siheere and earnest wish of the present executive, 
who, if the constitution be ratified, will with pleasure surrender his powers to whomsoever the 
people may designate as his successor. 

“ Given at Monterey, California, this twelfth day of October, in the year of our Lord eigh¬ 
teen hundred and forty-nine. 

“B. RILEY, 

“ Brevet Brig. Gen. U. S. A., and Governor of California. 
“Official: “H. W. IIALLECK, 

“ Brevet Captain and Secretary of State.’ 1 


Jhese facts and official papers prove conclusively that the proposition to the 
people of California to hold a convention and organize a State government origin¬ 
ated with, and that all the proceedings were had in subordination to, the authority 
and supremacy of the existing local government of the Territory, under the advice 
and with the approval of the executive government of the United States. Hence 
the action of the people of California in forming their constitution and State gov¬ 
ernment, and of Congress in admitting the State into the Union, cannot be cited, 
with the least show of justice or fairness, in justification or palliation of the revolu¬ 
tionary movements to subvert the government which Congress has established in 
Kansas. 

Nor can the insurgents derive aid or comfort from tke position assumed by 
either party to the unfortunate controversy which arose in the State of Rhode 
Island a few years ago, when an effort was made to change the organic law, and 
set up a State government in opposition to the one then in existence, under the 
charter granted by Charles the Second of England. Those who were engaged in 
that unsuccessful struggle assumed, as fundamental truths in our system of govern- 


28 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 


ment, that Rhode Island was a sovereign State in all that pertained to her internal 
affairs; that the right to change their organic law was an essential attribute of 
sovereignty; that, inasmuch as the charter under which the existing government 
was organized contained no provision for changing or amending the same, and the 
people had not delegated that right to the legislature or any other tribunal, it fol¬ 
lowed, as a matter of course, that they had retained it, and were at liberty to exer¬ 
cise it in such manner as to them should seem wise, just, and proper. 

Without deeming it necessary to express any opinion on this occasion in refer¬ 
ence to the merits of that controversy, it is evident that the principles upon which 
it was conducted are not involved in tfoe revolutionary struggle now going on in 
Kansas; for the reason, that the sovereignty of a Territory remains in abeyance, 
suspended in the United States, in trust for the people, until they shall be admitted 
into the Union as a State. In the meantime they are entitled to enjoy and exer¬ 
cise all the privileges and rights of self-government, in subordination to the consti¬ 
tution of the United. States, and in obedience to their organic law passed by Con¬ 
gress in pursuance of that instrument. These rights and privileges are all derived 
from the constitution through the act of Congress, and must be exercised and 
enjoyed in subjection to all the limitations and restrictions which that constitution 
imposes. Hence, it is clear that the people of the Territory have no inherent 
sovereign right under the constitution of the United States to annul the laws and 
resist the authority of the Territorial government which Congress has established 
in obedience to the constitution. 

In tracing, step by step; the origin and history of these Kansas difficulties, your 
committee have been profoundly impressed with the significant fact, that each one 
has resulted from an attempt to violate or circumvent the principles and provisions 
of the act of Congress for the organization of Kansas and Nebraska. The leading 
idea and fundamental principle of the Kansas-Nebraska act, as expressed in the law 
itself, was to leave the actual settlers and bona-fide inhabitants of each Territory 
“perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way , 
subject only to the constitution of the United States .” While this is declared to be 
“the true intent and meaning of the act,” those who were opposed to allowing the 
people of the Territory, preparatory to their admission into the Union as a State, 
to decide the slavery question for themselves, failing to accomplish their purpose in 
the halls of Congress, and under the authority of the constitution, immediately re¬ 
sorted in their respective States to unusual and extraordinary means to control the 
political destinies and shape the domestic institutions of Kansas, in defiance of the 
wishes and regardless of the rights of the people of that Territory as guarantied by 
their organic Jaw. Combinations in one section of the Union to stimulate an un¬ 
natural and false system of emigration, with the view of controlling the elections, 
and forcing the domestic institutions of the Territory to assimilate to those of the 
non-slaveholding States, were followed, as might have been foreseen, by the use of 
similar means, in the slaveholding States, to produce directly the opposite result. 
To these causes, and to these alone, in the opinion of your committee, may be 
traced the origin and progress of all the controversies and disturbances with which 
Kansas is now convulsed. 

If these unfortunate troubles have resulted as natural consequences from urn 
authorized and improper schemes of foreign interference with the internal affairs 
and domestic concerns of Ihe Territory, it is apparent that the remedy must be 
sought in a strict adherence to the principles, and rigid enforcement of the pro¬ 
visions, of the organic law. In this connexion your committee feel sincere satis¬ 
faction in commending the messages and proclamation of the President of the 
United States, in which we have the gratifying assurance that the supremacy of the 
laws will be maintained ; that rebellion will be crushed; that insurrection will be 
suppressed; that aggressive intrusion for the purpose of deciding elections, or any 
other purpose, will be repelled ; that unauthorized intermeddling in the local con- 


AFFAIRS OF KANSAS. 


29 


cerns ot the Territory, both from adjoining and distant States, will be prevented; 
that the federal and local laws will be vindicated against all attempts of organized 
resistance; and that the people of the Territory will bo protected in the establish¬ 
ment of their own institutions, undisturbed by encroachments from without, and in 
the full enjoyment of the rights of self-government assured to them by the consti¬ 
tution and the organic law. 

In view of these assurances, given under the 'conviction that the existing laws 
confer all the authority necessary to the performance of these important duties, 
and that the whole available force of the United States will be exerted to the extent 
required for their performance, your committee repose in entire confidence that 
peace, and securit) 7- , and law will prevail in Kansas. If any further evidence were 
necessary to prove that all the collisions and difficulties in Kansas have been pro¬ 
duced by the schemes of foreign interference which have been developed in this 
report, in violation of the principles and in evasion of the provisions of the Kansas- 
Nebraska act, it may be found in the fact that in Nebraska, to which the emigrant 
aid societies did not extend their operations, and into which the stream of emigra¬ 
tion was permitted to flow in its usual and natural channels, nothing has occurred 
to disturb the peace and harmony of the Territory, while the principle of self-gov¬ 
ernment, in obedience to the constitution, has had fair play, and is quietly working 
out its legitimate results. 

It now only remains for your committee to respond to the two specific recom¬ 
mendations of the President in his special message. They are as follows: 

“ This, it seems to me, can be best accomplished by providing that, when the inhabitants of 
Kansas may desire it, and shall be of sufficient numbers to constitute a State, a convention of 
delegates, duly elected by the qualified voters, shall assemble to frame a constitution, and thus 
prepare, through regular and lawful means, for its admission into the Union as a State. I re¬ 
spectfully recommend the enactment of a law to that effect. 

ii I recommend, also, that a special appropriation be made to defray any expense which may 
become requisite in the execution of the laws or the maintenance of public order in the Terri¬ 
tory of Kansas.” 

In compliance with the first recommendation, your committee ask leave to report 
a bill authorizing the legislature of the Territory to provide by law for the election 
of delegates by the people, and the assembling of a convention to form a constitu¬ 
tion and State government, preparatory to their admission into the Union on an 
equal footing with the original States, as soon as it shall appear, by a census to be 
taken under the direction of the governor, by the authority of the legislature, that 
the Territory contains ninety-three thousand four hundred and twenty inhabitants— 
that being the number required by the present ratio of representation for a member 
of Congress. 

In compliance with the other recommendation, your committee propose to offer 
to the appropriation bill an amendment appropriating such sum as shall be found 
necessary, by the estimates to be obtained, for the purpose indicated in the recom¬ 
mendation of the President. 

All of which is respectfully submitted to the Senate by your committee. 






• v :' 






1 


* 



: ' , " 



• 


- . ■ alii / 




























SPEECH 


OP 

JOSIAH RANDALL, ESQ., 

OF PHILADELPHIA, 

Delivered at Chamber%burg , August 6, 1856, at the request of the 
Democratic State Convention , of Pennsylvania, 


In obedience to tbe request of the Democratic State Conven¬ 
tion, of Pennsylvania, I claim the attention of my fellow-citizens 
for a short time. I am aware that I have received this courtesy 
because I have heretofore been a member of the Old Line Whig 
party. 

In 1824-5, the Democratic and Whig parties were separated 
by no principle, but were divided upon the question, whether 
Gen. Jackson was entitled to be elected President of the United 
States. In the progress of time, during the thirty years of the 
existence of the Whig party, several important principles were 
presented, and the two parties became distinct and independent 
of each other upon questions of public policy. These were: 

1. The renewal of the Charter of the Bank of the United 
States. 

2. The Sub-Treasury. 

3. The Distribution of the Proceeds of the Public Lands. 

4. The Tariff. 

A “National Bank” was abandoned by the Democratic party, 
under the veto of Gen. Jackson in 1832, and by the Whig party 
in 1844. 

“ The Sub-Treasury,” the cardinal measure of Mr. Yan Buren, 
was opposed by the Whig party, has fought itself into public 
favor, and now no one wishes to disturb it. 




E FoTkinliorn, Printer, Washington. 





“The Distribution of the Proceeds of the Public Lands,” has 
been superceded by the debt created by the Mexican war. 

“The Tariff” no longer remains either a political or geogra¬ 
phical question. During the last Congress, the “State Rights” 
men of the South and the Republican Abolitionists of the North, 
united against Pennsylvania, without distinction of party, to 
reduce the tariff below its present standard. 

I do not include in this category the question of Internal Im¬ 
provement by the Federal Government, or the Acquisition of New 
Territory. All parties in the West are in favor of the exercise of 
the first power; the second was determined by the election of Mr. 
Polk, in 1844, when a new feature in the Republic was developed, 
that our people collectively are anxious to increase the public 
domain in the same manner as individuals are anxious to increase 
their private property. 

If there remains any practical disputable principle, which con¬ 
stituted an issue between the Democratic and the old Whig 
parties, I do not know it. 

The Whig party has performed its duty, and has had its day. 
It has been prostrated by the organization of the American 
party, or the Know-Nothing Order. They, and not the Old 
Line Whigs, have been the executioners. They have renounced 
their old cognomen , laid aside their old principles, and substituted ■ 
in their place a new name and a new creed never before recog¬ 
nized by Clay, Webster, Sergeant, or their noble compeers. 

I know there are many intelligent and patriotic men who 
cherish the hope that the Whig party can again be resusciated, 
but the hope is delusive, and it is pernicious, because it deprives 
the country of a large portion of intellect and worth, which 
ought to be brought into public service. In the history of our 
republic, no party broken down has ever yet teen re-organized. 
The fate of the Federal and Anti-Masonic parties establishes this 
fact. There is not, at this time, a Whig member of the popular 
branch of Congress elected by a Whig vote. There is not a 
member of the Legislature of Pennsylvania elected by a Whig 
vote. There is not a member of the Councils of the City of 
Philadelphia elected by a Whig vote. For the last two years, 
with but two exceptions, wherever the scattered members of the 
Whig party have met in council, they have felt their position, 
and have, therefore, wisely abstained from forming a ticket to be 
voted for at the polls. In New Hampshire and Massachusetts 
they rallied at the polls, and the result was paucity of numbers 
and total defeat. But what good would be derived from the re¬ 
organization and triumph of the old Whig party? They do 
not want a National Bank. They do not desire the repeal of 


3 


the Sub-Treasury. The most ardent friends of the tariff do not 
ask for the re-establishmcnt of the high tariff of 1828, or even of 
1842; but all they ask is, that the tariff shall stand where it was 
placed in 1846 by the casting vote of the Vice President, Mr. 
Dallas. All the old issues have been settled, and, as a natural 
consequence, new parties have sprung up, and new issues have been 
formed. . The Order of Know-Nothings have violated the letter 
and spirit of the VI. Article of the Constitution of the United 
States, which declares that u no religious test shall ever be 
required as a qualification to any ojfice or public trust under the 
Lnited States. ’ They have established secret societies, secret 
oaths and obligations. With these principles the Whig party, in 
its days of power and numerical strength, had no sympathy or 
affiliation, and there is no part of the Union where the Whigs 
were more inflexible in opposing these political heresies than in 
the State of Pennsylvania. 

In 1845, when the Whig party met in the City of Philadelphia, 
after the defeat of Mr. Clay, the duty of opening the meeting and 
setting forth their principles was committed to me. I held in my 
hand at that meeting, the charter of Rhode Island, granted to 
Roger Williams, a Baptist minister, which contains the broadest and 
most comprehensive declaration of religious liberty and equal¬ 
ity ever yet penned. I read its eloquent and energetic platform 
and said, “this is the doctrine of the Whig party,” and 
pointing to the ruins of the Roman Catholic Church of St. 
Augustine, burnt during the disgraceful riots of 1844, and which 
lay within a few yards of the place of meeting, I added, “there 
is its desecration.” There is not a nook nor corner in the vast 
region of our country which does not contain old line Whigs 
who are willing to stand by the Constitution and the Union. 
But their numerical strength is far exceeded by their patriotism, 
talents, and public spirit. This is the body to which I have been 
attached, and I feel the deepest interest in the course they shall 
pursue. 

The Republican party is sectional, and its success must, in 
m y judgment, lead to a severance of the Union. I do not believe 
that the great mass of that party anticipate this result; but if it 
should be consummated, their regret will be no equivalent for the 
damning injury thereby inflicted upon this great Republic. I 
appeal to every old line Whig in the Union to avert this calamity. 
The South cannot and will not remain in the Union, unless their 
rights shall be guaranteed to them. If we were in the same situa¬ 
tion, we would demand our rights in tones as imperative and man¬ 
datory as those which are now used by ou# Southern brethren. 

How is this great evil to be avoided? I answer, by the elec- 


4 


tion of Mr. Buchanan. Every vote given to him is a check to 
the progress of the Republican party. I know there are many 
Whigs who approve of the administration of Millard Fillmore, 
and are willing to trust him again. Every vote given to Mr. 
Fillmore increases the danger of the success of Mr. Fremont. 
Every vote given to Mr. Buchanan potentially seals the fate of 
Mr. Fremont. But Millard Fillmore in 1848, ’50, and ’52, 
is not the Millard Fillmore of 1856. When he was elected 
Vice President in 1848,—when he became the acting President 
in 1850,—and when he was a candidate for re-nomination by the 
Whig Convention in Baltimore, in 1852, he professed to be a 
Whig—nothing more, nothing less. The Native American party 
at that time was in existence and proclaimed principles in terms 
far less exceptionable than those now avowed by the Know- 
Nothing party. But Mr. Fillmore then had neither part nor lot 
with them, he stood upon the ground occupied by Clay, Web¬ 
ster and Sergeant. What is he now ? He has been initiated 
into the Order of Know-Nothings, taken upon himself its secret 
oaths and obligations, and this at a time when his friends were 
presenting his claims to be elected President of the United 
States. He has since become the candidate and accepted the 
nomination of the American or Know-Nothing National Con¬ 
vention. In a correspondence between the Order of the United 
Americans of the State of New York and him, under the date of 
July 25th, 1856, they say:— 

“Both from your past official acts, and from the assurances 
and views expressed by you on many occasions, as having similar 
sentiments in reference to those subjects, to them of so much 
seeming importance, the successful establishment of these princi¬ 
ples, as the fundamental rules of our Government, they believe 
essential for its tranquillity, and a continued progress in the 
development of all its greatness.” 

Mr. Fillmore in his answer, dated 29th of July, 1856, acquiesces 
in this statement and replies— 

“ My position before the country is well known, admitting nei¬ 
ther of disguise nor equivocation. I am the candidate of the Ameri¬ 
can party.” 

Mr. Fillmore here proclaims himself the American candidate, 
and adopts the creed, oaths and obligations of that party without 
“disguise or equivocation.” In the Secret Lodge of the Order of 
Know-Nothings he has sworn that he will neither vote for nor ap¬ 
point a Roman Catholic to office. If elected and inaugurated Presi¬ 
dent of the United States, he would be compelled to swear that he 
would require u no religious test as a qualification to any office or 
public trust under the United States” I ask, under such cir- 


5 


cumstances, -which oath would he keep, and which oath would he 
violate ? I desire to treat Mr. Fillmore fairly, but all experience 
tells us, that in such cases, the candidate if elected will pre¬ 
serve his political allegiance and forget his Constitutional in¬ 
junction. Are the Old Line Whigs prepared to endorse Mr. 
Fillmore, thus presented by himself for their suffrages ? 
I know no difference between an individual joining the Order 
and giving his vote to sustain its candidate, except that the 
latter course is more effective in carrying out the tenets of 
this party. 

The friends of Mr. Fillmore have assailed Mr. Buchanan for his 
Ostend communication. Without admitting or denying the sound¬ 
ness of the doctrine therein contained, I would remark that the 
correspondence of Mr. Everett, as Secretary of State under Mr. 
Fillmore, after the death of Mr. Webster, relative to Cuba, is 
more offensive, and ought to be more obnoxious to the criti¬ 
cism of conservative men than the Ostend Letter; and it should 
be remembered that the diplomatic manifesto of Mr. Everett 
was issued under the immediate supervision of Mr. Fillmore and 
his Cabinet. 

Mr. Everett is probably the best educated statesman now living; 
he is an erudite scholar and a sound patriot. When in Congress, 
he took higher ground in favor of the South on the subject of slavery, 
than any Northern statesman had ever done before, or has ever 
done since. One thing is certain, any opinion upon International 
Law promulgated by him, is entitled to respect. Mr. Buchanan 
has been in public life upwards of forty years, he has filled the 
highest offices which his own State could confer upon him. He 
has occupied the first seat in the Cabinet during a most eventful 
epoch; and he has twice represented his country at the Courts of 
the two first nations in Europe. His private character stands 
without blot or blemish and beyond rebuke or reproach; and it is 
a high eulogium upon his public life, that the “ Ostend Letter ” is 
the only act which is designated by his opponents as the ground of 
attack. 

On the subject contained in these diplomatic documents, I have 
not changed my former sentiments. I desire, ardently, the acquisi¬ 
tion of Cuba; no child can look at the map without seeing it ought 
to belong to those who own the Gulf of Mexico; but unless we 
can honestly obtain it, I would leave it where it is. We have paid 
for every foot of ground that we have ever acquired, and unless 
Cuba can be obtained in the same manner that Louisiana, Florida, 
the recently acquired Territory from Mexico, and Texas, I am 
utterly opposed to any other mode of bringing it into the Union. 
The mother country who taunts us with the charge of being 


6 


anxious to increase our Territory, is the most insatiate cormorant 
among the nations of the earth, has never paid for a foot of 
ground that she ever held, but has always wrested it from 
the weak and powerless who have been unable to protect their 
dominions. 

There are many Old Line Whigs who are attached to their cog¬ 
nomen, and dislike changing it—this is an overscrupulous nicety. 
They must change their name—they must recognize the title of an 
American Know-Nothing, Republican, or a Democrat. If they 
refuse to elect either of ’these names, they must retire from all 
participation in public affairs. Gov. Sewakd is reported to have 
said in caucus, during the present session of Congress, that he cared 
nothing for names, but that he looked to principles alone. This 
remark showed he had a clear head and a sound judgment, and 
was worthy of a better cause. 

I hold that the Territory ceded to us by Mexico was purchased 
by common treasure. The fifteen Slave States contributed their 
portion of the fund as well as the then fifteen Free States. Terri¬ 
tory should stand on the same footing as admitted States, and the 
right of the people to hold Slaves or not, as they please, in the 
Territory, ought to be commensurate with the right of the people 
as they exist in the thirty-one States. There can be no just ground 
for any discrimination between the two cases. New Territory is 
surely not more sacred than the old thirteen States, or the present 
thirty-one States. The will of a majority prevails in the cases la^c 
enumerated, and the same orthodox principle should prevail in the 
newly-acquired Territory. 

What is the doctrine of the Wilmot Proviso ? It is the sixteen 
Free States declaring to the fifteen Slave States—you are part 
owners of this Territory; you have shed your blood and expended 
your treasure in acquiring it, but you shall have no share in 
its enjoyment or profits. Strip it of its trappings, and it 
amounts to this: there are thirty-one stockholders in a cor¬ 
poration, and sixteen say to fifteen, it is true you are part 
owners and have contributed to the purchase of our common 
property, but you shall have no share in the enjoyment of its 
privileges or the receipts of its profits. Such a doctrine is subver¬ 
sive of every principle of justice and equality, and cannot be 
sustained. 

I am not the advocate of opinions that are new to the Whig 
party of Pennsylvania. At a Whig meeting held in September, 
1850, at the Chinese Museum, in Philadelphia, I offered a resolu¬ 
tion congratulating the Nation upon the restoration of peace 
and quietude to the country by the passage of the Compromise 
Acte of that year. It was unanimously adopted, and I then 


7 


laid down the same principles which I am now endeavoring to 
inculcate. 

In November, 1850, the great Union Meeting was held at the 
same place, over which John Sergeant presided. Among others, 
I again enforced the same principles. On the 27th of February, 
1851, a pure Whig meeting was called to request the repeal of 
the Act of the Legislature of 1847, which closed the public jails 
of this Commonwealth against the custody of Fugitive Slaves. At 
that meeting Samuel Breck, second to no man in the country in 
intelligence and patriotism, presided. I again promulgated the 
same doctrines, and they were again endorsed by the Whig party 
assembled on that occasion. 

In 1819-20 when the Missouri Compromise was adopted, the 
North, without distinction of party, held different sentiments. 
There is no real discrepance between the two attitudes when 
rightly understood. In 1820 the South adopted the Missouri 
Compromise, and never abandoned it until after 1850, when 
it was abrograted by what is generally understood as the 
Compromise Acts of Congress of that year. During the dis¬ 
cussion of those measures, the South upon the amendment of Mr. 
Turney, of Tennessee, endeavored to continue that Compromise, by 
extending it to the Pacific, but the North rejected it. On the other 
hand, the Free-soil party have never abided by the Compromise of 
18 ^O. They opposed in 1821 the admission of Missouri, and in 
1825, the admission of Arkansas. They now go back, and pro¬ 
claim the Wilmot Proviso as their standard, which is a direct abroga¬ 
tion of the Missouri Compromise, and declares all territory whether 
North or South of 36 degrees 30 minutes, shall be free. 

If the’ South were now willing to prohibit Slavery in the newly- 
acquired territory, I would rejoice at the declaration; but they are 
not willing. They assert their rights , and I am in favor of an en- 
re and cordial recognition of those rights. If Maryland or any 
o ther Slave State should abolish slavery, it would give me unal¬ 
loyed pleasure; but it does not follow, that I would therefore 
be in favor of compelling such Slave States against their will to 
abolish it. 

These are some of the reasons why I invoke every Old Line 
Whig in Pennsylvania to support Mr. Buchanan. The triumph of 
the Democratic party in Pennsylvania, in October next, would 
place his election beyond doubt. It would remove the last glim¬ 
mering hope of the opposition, restore peace and quietude to the 
country, and for one generation at least, put at rest the present 
agitation on the question of slavery. The Old Line Whigs of 
Pennsylvania possess the power to accomplish this great result; 
the responsibility rests upon them, and I have no doubt but that 


8 


the draft which is made upon their patriotism will he promptly 
accepted, and that the great Keystone State will once more come 
to the rescue, and do as she has done heretofore, put down all sec¬ 
tional feeling, and at the ballot-box perpetuate the Union, which 
has so long been the pride and admiration of every friend of civil 
and religious liberty throughout the world. 

IN SENATE. Tuesday, August 6th, 1850. 

Admission of California. 

Mr. Turney moved to strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert as 
follows: 

“ When it shall be made to appear to the President of the United States, by 
satisfactory evidence, that the people inhabiting the Territory of California, (or 
so much of said Territory, as is comprised within the limits proposed by this bill 
as the boundaries of the State of California,) assembled in Convention, have 
agreed to a line not further South than the parallel of 36° 30' North latitude, as 
the Southern boundary of said State, and limited the representation of said State 
to one Representative until after the next census of the inhabitants of the United 
States, the said State of California may be admitted into the Union, upon the 
Proclamation of the President, upon an equal footing with the original States. 

“ Sec. — . And be it further enacted, That the line of 36° 30' of North latitude, 
known as the Missouri Compromise line, as defined by the eighth section of an 
Act, entitled ‘An Act to authorize the people of the Missouri Territory to form a 
Constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the 
Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to prohibit slavery in 
certain Territories/ approved March 6th, 1820, be, and the same is hereby declar¬ 
ed to extend to the Pacific Ocean : and the said eighth section, together with the 
Compromise therein effected, is hereby revived, and declared to be in full force 
and binding for the future organization of the Territories of the United States, 
in the same sense and with the same understanding with which it was originally 
adopted.” 

The question was stated to be upon the amendment of Mr. Turney, and, being 
taken by yeas and nays, was rejected by the following vote: 

Yeas —Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Barnwell, Bell, Berrien, Butler, Clemens, 
Davis, of Mississippi, Dawson, Downs, Foote, Houston, Hunter, King, Mangum, 
Mason, Morton, Pearce, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Turney, and Yulee—24. 

Nays —Messrs. Baldwin, Benton, Bradbury, Bright, Cass, Clarke, Cooper, Davis, 
of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dickenson, Dodge, of Wisconsin, Dodge, of Iowa, 
Douglas, Ewing, Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Jones, Norris, Phelps, Seward, 
Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Underwood, Upham, Wales, Walker, Whit¬ 
comb, and Winthrop—32. Congressional Globe, 1st Sess. 31sZ Cong., Vol. 21, 
Part 2nd, page 1532. 

When this vote was taken Mr. Clay was absent from indisposi¬ 
tion, Mr. Webster bad been appointed Secretary of State and 
Mr. Winthrop was substituted in his stead. Both Mr. Clay and 
Mr. Webster had acted with the majority, and from their known 
sentiments would, if present, have voted against Mr. Turney’s 
amendment. 


SPEECH OE REV. HENRY SLICER, 1 * 

Delivered in the General Conference at Indianapolis, 28 th May, 1856, on the sub¬ 
ject of the proposed change in the Methodist Discipline, making J\'on-Slave- 
holding a Test or Condition of Membership in said Church. 


( I atn aware, Mr. President, said Mr. S., 
that this Conference is not in a stale of mind 
or teeling tb listen to any protracted remarks. 

The Conference which l have the honor, 
in part, to represent, is represented here by 
fifteen delegates, and has a membership of 
75,000, white and colored. The peculiar 
position which we occupy, the weight of 
the body to which we belong, the largeness 
of our colored membership, each and all 
combined, furnish reasons why we should be 
fully heard on this vexed andperplexing question. 

Need I say, sir, that we are not pro-sla¬ 
very ; Need i say that; we publicly avow 
our adherence to the authorized standard 
found in our Discipline? We are not here to 
ask for changes. We are not here to promote 
agitation, but to allay strife, and to stand fir inly 
upon the platform of the Discipline as it is. 

This debate has taken a wide range, and a 
little of almost everything has been brought 
into this discussion. We have had “ idola¬ 
try,'’ “political organizations,”polygamy,” 
(indeed, sir, there has appeared a remarkable 
proclivity of mind in that direction.) We 
have had the “ stiletto in the bosom of free 
Kansas,” and “ the skeleton, bloody hand 
of Slavery shaken over the North, and mak¬ 
ing an impression upon the whole country, 
and moving the popular heart until it heaves 
as the billows of the ocean ”—and we have 
been called upon to rally, for the purpose of 
“ wiping out this foul blot,” and removing 
“this sum of all villainies” from the nation. 

The Bible has been quoted from Genesis 
almost to the Apocalypse, and I despair, 
Mr. President, of being able to follow the 
speakers in all their wanderings from the 
subject under discussion. 

1 desire, Mr. President, to call the atten¬ 
tion of this General Conference to two 
general propositions: 

First, That we have no right to do, under 
existing circumstances, what is proposed to 
be done. And secondly, That to do it, 
would be of most mischievous and destruc¬ 
tive tendency. And further I wish to say, 
that whatever has been done, in this or any 
other country, heretofore, in regard to the 
efficient management of this delicate ques¬ 
tion, has been done not by rash, precipitate, 
or destructive efforts. 

I wish, sir, to enter a short caveat against 
this proposed measure, and I hope if breth¬ 
ren will not hear for the sake of the white 
men on our border, they will at least for the 
love they bear to the colored man, listen to 
what we may have to say. 

Whenever the Church or country mani¬ 
fests a disposition to trifle with organic law, 
good ground is furnished for suspicion and 
alarm ; and if we are prepared to go against 
the judgment of the wisest and best men of 
the Church in all time past—and against 
the powerful argument read upon this floor 
to-day—and also against the judgment of 

)L Foikinhorn, Printer, Washington. 


the Bishops, who have expressed the opin¬ 
ion that we have not the constitutional vote 
required to make such a change—we shall 
do incalculable mischief throughout our 
whole connection. 

Once let the principle be adopted that a 
bare majority vote , can set aside the constitu¬ 
tion by riding down its restrictions, and in 
I860, our people may bid farewell to the 
Restrictive Rules, on page 33 of our Disci¬ 
pline, by which even the rights of a minor¬ 
ity are guarded from invasion. 

The wise men who framed our civil gov¬ 
ernment, and constituted it a government of 
limited powers, guarded with jealous care 
the rights of minorities, and of the smaller 
States, by giving them an equal representa¬ 
tion in the United States Senate, so as to 
make iittie Delaware equal to the great 
State of New York in the number of their 
Senators. And following this example, the 
fathers of our Church not only placed these 
restrictions upon the power of the General 
Conference, but also gave to each Annual 
Conference, however small, the right to 
have two delegates upon this floor. 

Let a bare majority rule, and we may, in 
1860, if that majority shall please, have an 
“Itinerant General Superintendency.” su¬ 
perseded by a Diocesan Episcopacy, and our 
wide-spread field of labor parceled out into 
many separate jurisdictions—for we have 
been told upon the floor of the present Gen¬ 
eral Conference that “ we are tired of being 
bound up, or tied down by constitutional 
restrictions. ” 

Let a majority suffice to lay aside the 
restrictions of our Discipline, and when that 
majority shall find it convenient they may 
deprive our ministers and members of the 
*right of trial by committee, and an appeal. 
And by the same process the General Con¬ 
ference may squander the capital and pro¬ 
ceeds of the Book Concern upon objects for¬ 
eign to those for which it was established. 

Let a bare majority to-day override the 
restriction, and virtually make a new term 
or condition of membership in our church, 
as is proposed by the Majority Report now 
before this Conference—thus setting aside 
the organic law of the Church—and you 
will shake the confidence of our whole peo¬ 
ple, and spread consternation and alarm 
through all our borders. For when our 
people discover that you have done by in¬ 
direction, what you were not allowed to do 
directly, upon the subject of Slavery, they 
will expect whenever under the pressure of 
popular clamor produced by any other cause, 
you may find it convenient to do so,, that 
your Constitution will be torn to shreds and 
their dearest rights trampled in the dust. 

It is alleged in the report, and it has been 
asserted in this debate, that while the Ge¬ 
neral Rule, “forbids the buying and selling” 
of slaves, that it therefore forbids the hold-' 







2 


ing or ownership of slaves. 

It is a wise maxim of civil law, that the 
law is to be interpreted by the framers of 
the law, and by the practice under ihe law 
immediately succeeding its enactment. This 
is a fair principle of construction, or method 
of interpretation—and to show that this prin¬ 
ciple has been recognised by the highest ju¬ 
dicial authority of this country, I beg leave 
to call the attention of the Conference to 
Cranch’s Reports, vol. 1, page 97. In the 
case of (Stewart vs. Leaird) Mr. Chief Jus¬ 
tice Marshall had tried this cause in the 
court below—the judgment was affirmed— 
and Mr. Justice Patterson, in delivering the 
opinion of the Supreme Court, said: 

“To this objection, which is of recent 
date, it is sufficent to observe that practice 
and acquiescence under it (the law) for a 
period of several years, commencing with 
the organization of the judicial system, af¬ 
ford an irresistible answer, and have indeed 
fixed the construction. It is a contempo¬ 
rary interpretation of the most forcible na¬ 
ture. This practical exposition is too strong 
and obstinate to be shaken or controlled. 
Of course, the question is at rest, and ought 
not now to be disturbed.” 

The General Rule of the Discipline on Sla¬ 
very is to be subjected to this rule of construe, 
ction—“the practice and acquiescence” un¬ 
der it, when the administration was in the 
hands of those venerable men who framed 
the Rule. 

The first notice which we have of the 
General Rule on Slavery is in 1789—(for it 
will be borne in mind, that it was not one 
of Mr.Wesley’s original Rules.) And when 
we look at the contemporaneous practice of 
the fathers, this practice is found to settle 
the matter unquestionably and undeniably, 
that the rule on Slavery was not intended to 
apply to simple slaveholding, but to the buy¬ 
ing and selling of slaves. 

Even when previously, at the Christmas 
Conference of 1784, they adopted the Rule 
(which they found it necessary immediately 
to suspend,) even then, in a N. B. they said 
that the Rule of gradual emancipation, 
which they had then adopted, “ should 
affect the members of our society no farther 
than as they are consistent with laws of the 
State in which they reside.” Our fathers 
always advised the use of “wise and prudent 
means,” in dealing with this subject. 

I now turn my attention to my friend, Dr. 
Thompson, and make a short answer to his 
remarks upon Slavery as it existed in the 
days of Abraham, and the Hebrews. I 
should have been better pleased with the 
Doctor if, after telling us that Abraham had 
servants, “born in his house and bought 
with his money,” he had not undertaken to 
prove in the face of the passage, that what 
was bought with Abraham’s money was not 
property, and that those servants were not 
slaves.—The reasoning of the Doctor in this 
case is not such as I had expected from him, 
knowing as I do his intelligence and learn¬ 
ing. He concludes, as I think, illogically, 
that because, as he says, “ when Abraham 
a rmed three hundred of his household ser¬ 


vants, they were not held as property,” and 
he said that he could convince all that Abra¬ 
ham armed his slaves three hundred strong, 
and marched them into a hostile territory, 
and then marched them back.” “In the 
name of common sense,” said he, “ how 
could he have found his way back a slave¬ 
holder? Suppose he had had slaves such as 
the southern slaveholders have, could he 
have done this?” 

Now, Mr. President, this reasoning strikes 
me as being peculiar. If, when Abraham 
went out to rescue his nephew Lot from the 
confederate kings, his three hundred slaves 
found themselves in the midst of “ a hostile 
territory,” that of itself would furnish a good 
reason why they should not turn “ fugitives” 
among hostile pagans by forsaking a kind 
and devotedly pious master. I should con¬ 
clude that the strong sympathy and affection 
which existed between “the father of the 
faithful,” “the friend of God,” and his 
armed slaves, which induced the latter to 
peril their lives in the rescue of their mas¬ 
ters’ relative, would furnish a much better 
reason why they did not abscond among hos¬ 
tile strangers than the one given by my 
learned friend. 

Again, sir, it has been no uncommon thing 
for slaves to accompany their masters to the 
battle-field, and to return from the dangers 
and toils of war to their quiet and comfort¬ 
able homes—it was so with our Washington 
and his slaves, in the first war of Independ¬ 
ence, and also with the hero of New Or¬ 
leans and his slaves in the second war of 
Independence. 

The Dr. next alluded to the Slavery 
among the Hebrews, and spoke of the pro¬ 
hibition to surrender fugitives. We were 
not informed, as we should have been, that 
while the Hebrews were not allowed to en¬ 
slave Hebrews, they were allowed to make 
slaves of the heathen—and while the sabbat- 
tic (or seventh) year was a year of release 
to the Hebrew servant, that arrangement 
did not extend to the pagan slaves. I refer 
for the law to Leviticus xxv, 44, 45, where 
you will observe that, while the Hebrew ser¬ 
vant is bought for six years, the heathen is 
called a “ bondsman,” and a “ possession,” 
and an “inheritance.” 

In regard to the fugitive slave law of the 
Hebrew, the Dr. has remarked that, “ if a 
fugitive slave came into the country, the 
commonwealth was pledged to prevent his 
being recaptured.” 

I do not perceive the bearing or reference 
of this matter to the subject before the Con¬ 
ference, but if you will indulge me, I will 
ask your attention while 1 read a passage 
from that great biblical scholar, Moses Stu¬ 
art, of Massachusetts, whose authority ought 
to be good on such a question, 

I quote from “ Bledsoe’s Liberty and Sla¬ 
very,” page 155: 

“ The first inquiry of course is,” says this 
learned divine, “in regard to those very 
words where does his master live? among 
the Hebrews, or among foreigners? The 
language of the passage fully developes this, 
and answers the question. He has escaped 





8 


from his master unto the Hebrews: (the text 
says thee, i. e. Israel:) he shall dwell with 
thee even among you—in one ot thy gates.” 
Of course, then, he is an immigrant, and did 
not dwell among them, before his flight. If 
he had been a Hebrew servant, belonging to 
a Hebrew, the whole face of the thing would 
be changed. Restoration, or restitution, if 
we may judge by the tenor of other proper¬ 
ty-laws among the Hebrews, would have 
surely been enjoined. But, be that as it 
may, the language of the text puts it beyond 
a doubt that the servant is a foreigner, and 
has fled from a heathen master. This entirely 
changes the complexion of the case. The 
Hebrews were God’s chosen people, and 
were the only nation on earth which wor¬ 
shipped the only living and true God. In 
case a slave escaped from them, (the heath¬ 
en,) and came to the Hebrews, two things 
were to be taken into consideration, accord¬ 
ing to the view of the Jewish legislation. 
The first was that the treatment of slave,' 
among the heathen was far more severe and 
rigorous than it'could lawfully be under the 
Mosaic law. The heathen master possessed 
the power of life and death, of scourging 
and imprisoning, or putting to excessive toil, 
even to any extent that he pleased. Not so 
among the Hebrews. Humanity pleaded 
there for the protection of the fugitive. 
The second and most important consideration 
was, that only among the Hebrews could the 
fugitive slave come to the knowledge and 
worship of the only living and true God.” 

And I need only add, Mr. President, that 
it is not very likely that there existed be¬ 
tween the Hebrews and the heathen nations 
surrounding them, any solemn engagements, 
such as “constitutional obligations,” to de¬ 
liver up “ fugitives from labor.” 

1 regret that Dr. T. has thought proper, 
in allusion to the case of Onesimus, the fu¬ 
gitive slave of Philemon, converted at Rome 
by the ministry of St. Paul, to make such 
exceptionable reference to the authorities 
of the Government of the United States. 
He asks “Do you believe that Onesimus was 
a slave ? If so, how did the Apostle get him 
back? If Paul had been a United States 
District Judge, with Marshals at his back, 
and secret service money at his command, 
he might get him back. 

I do not presume to enter into the discus¬ 
sion of the meaning of the Greek term 
( Doulos ,) which has so much occupied the 
Drs. of Divinity, Professors in Colleges, and 
the church papers of late. I will only say, 
that, as far as I know, the concurrent testi¬ 
mony of Commentators and Lexicographers, 
from McKnight, Donnegan, and Dr. Robin¬ 
son down, has interpreted it to mean a 
bondsman, the opposite of freeman. There 
never was, so far as I know, an effort to 
construe it otherwise, until it was necessary 
to serve a purpose. You were told by my 
learned friend that Onesimus was a “ run¬ 
away apprentice.” The same kind of inter¬ 
pretation might construe the language of St. 
Paul, in Gal. iv 22. “For it is written, 
that Abraham had two sons, the one by a 


I bondmaid, the other by a free woman.” 

! Thus, according to such a rendering, “Abra- 
! ham had two sons, the one by a free woman, 

: the other by a hired girl.” St. Peter has 
said that “ the unlearned and unstable wrest 
the Scriptures but it was reserved for mo¬ 
dern times to present the learned D. D.’s 
wresting plain Scriptures, the meaning of 
which the common sense of mankind had 
settled centuries ago. But, sir, a truceto this 
reference to the Scriptures, which I should 
not have made, but for the purpose of follow¬ 
ing those who went before me in this debate. 

A great deal, Mr. President, has been 
said here which, if reported upon our border, 
must do incalculable mischief. We have 
had such predictions of evil—such an ar- 
! raignment of Bishop Asbury and the Fath¬ 
ers—such representations of Slavery—tnak- 
! ing it out to be worse than Idolatry, Polyga- 
; my, or any of the blackest crimes known 
among Jews, Mohamedans, or Pagans—com¬ 
paring slaveholders to thieves, ike.—that 
these things must make difficulty among our 
people, especially on the border, and weaken 
the hands of those who have firmly stood by 
the interests of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, and this opinion will be corroborated 
by each and all of my colleagues on this floor 
My friend, Dr. Hodgson, read from Dr. 
Elliott’s work in regard to the Wesleyan 
missionaries in the British West Indies. I 
propose, Mr. President, to call further atten¬ 
tion to the same subject, that this Confe¬ 
rence may see what line of policy was pur¬ 
sued by the Wesleyan missionaries, under 
the instruction and direction of Richard 
Watson, and the wisest and best men in the 
Wesleyan connection. I hold in my hand 
the London Missionary Report of 1834, and 
I read from pages 12 and 13, to show how 
earnestly our brethren there pursued the 
great object of their mission, the salvation 
of the slaves and their masters, and how 
studiously they avoided everything which 
might, by possibility, embarrass them in 
their work, and hinder the accomplishment 
of their heaven-inspired purposes. I read 
from Instruction No. 6, as follows: 

“As, in the Colonies in which you are called 
to labor, a great proportion of the inhabitants 
are in a state of Slavery, the committee most 
strongly call to your recollection what ivas so 
fully stated to you, when you were accepted as a 
Missionary to the West Indies, that your only 
business is to promote the moral and religious 
improvement of the slaves, to whom you may 
have access, without, in the least degree, in 
public or private, interfering with their civil 
condition. On all persons in the state of slaves, 
you are diligently and explicitly to enjorce the 
same exhortations which the Apostles of our 
Lord administered to the slaves of ancient na¬ 
tions, where, by their ministry, they embraced 
Christianity; Ephesians 6th chapter, 5th and Sth 
verses, “Servants be obedient to them that are 
your masters according to the flesh,” Coloss. 3d 
chapt. 22 dand 25 th verses, “ Servants , obey in all 
things your masters according to the flesh, &{c.” 

Mr. Watson calls the persons addressed 
“Slaves of ancient nations.” 1 suppose 





4 


that his scholarship will hardly be ques¬ 
tioned by the learned doctors who have been 
laboring over the word Doulos, (for the last 
twelve months,) in the connection of that 
word with the controversy on domestic Sla¬ 
very. 

Instruction 9 is in the words following : 

“ The Committee caution you against enga¬ 
ging in any of the civil disputes or local politics 
of the Colony to which you may be appointed, 
either verbally, or by correspondence with miy 
person at home, or in the Colonies. The whole 
period of your temporary residence in the West 
Indies is to be filed up with the proper work of 
your mission—to be intent upon the solemn 
work of your office, and upon that eternal state, 
in the views of which the Committee trust you 
will ever think and act. ” 

And to show how earnest those wise men 
were in carrying out the policy they had 
adopted, I quote a part of Instruction 11, in 
words following : 

“ The instructions under this and under the 
former heads, are to be read over annually at the 
meeting of every District Committee by the 
chairman ; ivho is to enquire whether they have 
been observed on the part of the brethren; and 
the answer shall be reported in the District 
Minutes regularly and with them transmitted to 
the Committee in London. Every Superintend¬ 
ent is not only charged with the observance of 
them himself, but is responsible t as far as may 
be, for their observance by the brethren under his 
direction, or for an immediate report to the Dis¬ 
trict, or to the Managing Committee in London, 
in any case in which they may have been violated .” 

This was the method taken by the imme¬ 
diate successors of Mr. Wesley, in the man¬ 
agement of this delicate subject. They did 
not interfere with the “ civil condition of 
the slave,” but, following the example of 
our Lord and his Apostles, they preached 
the Gospel to masters and slaves—they 
sowed broadcast the seed of life—“ hid the 
leaven” of truth in the mass of humanity— 
inaugurated a process of Christian civiliza¬ 
tion, preparatory to the accomplishment of 
West India emancipation, which was con¬ 
summated some 70 years after the introduc¬ 
tion of Methodism into the Island. 

The Act of Emancipation was passed by 
the British Parliament, and in the fact of 
the indemnity to the owners, in the sum of 
one hundred millions of dollars, was entirely 
unlike anything proposed by those who agi¬ 
tate the subject of immediate emancipation 
in this country. 

And then it is further to be considered 
that the parties passing the Emancipation 
Act had between them, and the Islands hav¬ 
ing slavery, the waters of the broad Atlantic 
—they were not in immediate contact with 
three millions of colored population, are as the 
people of the Southern States of this Union. 

What good, I ask, either to master or 
slave, is to be effected by the adoption of the 
measure before the Conference? Have we 
any power to pass Emancipation Acts ? Have 
we millions to indemnify owners?—Congress 
itself has not the power to liberate a single 
slave. Has not the highest judicatory of 
the land decided that Slavery is a State in¬ 


stitution ? The measure before us speaks of 
“mercenary slaveholding”— cannot this 
Conference perceive that, in an attempt to 
make non-slaveholding a test of Church 
membership, the effect would be to induce 
the mercenary slaveholder to put the price 
of the slaves in his pocket, and, by that aet, 
tear asunder the ties of husband and wife, 
parents and children — there might be a 
change of owners —but such a measure would 
break no man’s chains, and lighten no man’s 
burden—the effect would be evil, and only 
evil, and that continually. Slavery does not 
depend upon your action. It is interwoven 
with civil society, and no action of the 
Church can affect it in the least, except that 
which is enjoined by Christ and his Apostles. 
We have heard a great deal about the law of 
love. If any one will put his finger on a 
single passage in the New Testament which 
teaches in words that the relation of master 
and slave is a sinful relation, we would like 
to see it. Mark, I do not say Christianity 
advocated Slavery, nor do I say Christianity 
tolerated it, nor did it seek to overthrow it 
except by the wise and prudent measures 
ordained by Christ and his Apostles. The 
Apostles went everywhere throughout the 
Roman Empire, and sowed broadcast the 
seeds of truth, expecting that it would spring 
up, and bring forth fruit. They did not at¬ 
tack the laws, nor seek to overthrow the 
civil institutions of the Empire. The New 
Testament contains no particular form of 
Government. It has left it with the people 
to enact such a form as they may judge 
most expedient. Thank God, Christianity 
flourishes under any Government under 
which she is allowed to open her mission, 
whether it be a Despotism, Republicanism, 
or a pure Democracy. Wherever she has 
leave to open her mission she goes forth, 
preaching liberty in the highest sense to the 
captives, and the opening of the prison doors 
to those that are bound. Christianity sought 
not to counteract or undermine, or sap the 
foundations of the Government, but con¬ 
formed to the laws of the land. Our blessed 
Saviour himself was so scrupulous and care¬ 
ful that when he was asked about the tribute 
money, whether it was lawful to give tribute 
to Caesar, he would not answer. He saw the 
craft of his enemies. Should he answer one 
way he would be embroiled with the Jews, 
should he answer another way, he would 
array himself against the Government. 
“Show me,” said he, “a penny. Whose 
image and superscription is this?” They 
answered, “Caesar’s.” Render, therefor,” 
said he, “ unto Caesar the things that are 
Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are 
God’s.” It is well known that the super¬ 
scription of the king was put upon the coin 
of the country, and hence the answer. 

Christianity is not an apologist for Slavery, 
and while it publishes no toleration of Sla¬ 
very, neither does it seek directly to attack it 
—but in its progress it seeks to counter-work 
every species of evil. It went for(h with 
one single aim, proclaiming “ repentance 
towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus 
Christ;” and what was the effect? Why, 



o 


the fact is that in the Roman Empire, in the 
course of seven hundred years, the power of 
slavery was broken, and after the lapse of 
one thousand years, it ceased throughout the 
Empire. We have been told by Dr. Thomp¬ 
son that “ slavery has been in this country 
three hundred years, and the horrid system 
has been growing worse and worse.” I do 
not think the Pilgrim fathers brought any 
slaves to Plymouth rock, and it has not been 
quite two hundred and fifty years since they 
landed there. Things are growing worse 
and worse, are they? Well, we will take a 
look at this matter. A reference to figures 
will show that the reverse is the fact, the 
converse of what Dr.Thompson stated is true 

Dr. Thomson rose here and remarked that 
his statement referred to the increase of the 
slave power. 

Mr. S. replied—The history of the coun¬ 
try will show that he is wrong. 

Dr. T. What do you mean by country? 

Mr. S. 1 mean the United States, of 
course. We have had vivid pictures drawn 
here representing “the slave power as hav¬ 
ing its foot upon the neck of freedom and 
shaking its bloody skeleton hand, threaten¬ 
ing to overrun all the States of the Union.” 

[True! true! here was uttered by several 
voices.] 

Well, we shall see whether it is true or not. 
I, said Mr. S., do not believe one word of it. 
But to the facts. In 1789, twelve-thirteenths 
of all the States had slaves in their borders. 
If any of you dispute this fact I should like to 
hear from you. When the controversy came 
up in relation to the prospective extinction 
of the slave trade, limiting it to 1808 through 
a period of twenty consecutive years, Vir¬ 
ginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania and New 
Jersey, voted to terminate the slave trade 
in 1800, but Connecticut, Massachusetts, 
and New Hampshire voted with Georgia 
and South Carolina, and carried the question 
of the extension of the slave trade to 1808. 
(Here a voice said, “ It was cotton did it.”) 

1 guess, replied Mr. S., that you had not got 
the spinning jennnies to work so early as 
that. I do not blame New England for vot¬ 
ing with Georgia and South Carolina in the 
matter: they believed that the formation “ of 
a more perfect union” to provide for the 
common defence and promote the general 
welfare,” “and to secure the blessings of 
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, ” 
greatly to be desired. If the States of New 
England had not met the other States in a 
spirit of compromise, but had held off, the 
union could not have been formed. I do 
not blame her. And I hope that the brother 
who is so sensitive whenever I refer to New 
England, will not be disturbed by this state¬ 
ment of the truth, as I am not in any respect 
answ r erable for facts of history. 

I repeat that twelve-thirteenths of the 
States held slaves at the adoption of the 
Federal Constitution. 

If reference is had to the debates in the 
first Congress in 1790, it will be found that j 
upon the presentation of a petition from 
Benjamin Franklin and others, and also one | 


from the Friends of Pennsylvania, in rela¬ 
tion to the abolition to the slave trade—the 
answer early given was that Congress had 
no power to grant the prayer of the peti¬ 
tioners earlier than 1808, and that all that 
could be done was to embarrass the trade 
by a per capita tax of $10 on all future im¬ 
portations of slaves. 

How do the figures stand in 1790, the year 
after the Constitution was adopted. By ref¬ 
erence to statistics of population of that 
time, as compared with the statistics of 1850, 
it will be seen that our friends are not likely 
to be overwhelmed, and swallowed up with 
slavery. I will quote the figures as found 
in “Colton’s Atlas of the World;” from 
this it will be seen that, instead of freedom 
going backward, six States have become 
free of the original thirteen, and that in 
addition, we have the great free States 
formed from the Northwest Territory out of 
the soil ceded by Virginia, and the immense 
Territory on the Pacific. 

But how stands the population, the free 
as compared to the slave, at the two periods 
named ? 

Population of the United States in 1790— 
whites, .3,172,464 ; free colored, 59,446 ; 
slaves, 697,897; or about five whites to one 
slave, and one free colored to eleven slaves. 

In 1850—whites, 19,558,068; free colored, 
434,495 ; slaves, 3,204,313 ; or about six 
whites to one slave, and seven slaves to one 
free colored. 

Here you see that free colored people 
have increased (by emancipation and other¬ 
wise) to near half a million, while the dispro¬ 
portion of slaves to the white and free color¬ 
ed population is greatly increased since 1790. 

Emancipation has progressed from New 
England to the line of Delaware, where the 
slave population is sparse, and slavery ex¬ 
ists in its mildest form. The States where 
emancipation has been effected, did it them¬ 
selves, without the aid of mischievous inter¬ 
meddlers who had no jurisdiction over the 
subject. And but for the rashness and in¬ 
considerate zeal of outside agitators, the 
progress of emancipation would have been 
much greater than it has been for the last 
thirty years. 

From the inauguration of associated aboli- 
lition action , at Boston, in 1832, to this hour, 
but little or less than nothing has been done 
—the motion has been retrograde—this is 
true in regard to Kentucky, Maryland, and 
Virginia. In each of those States, before 
the period named, the terdency among 
statesmen and Christians was fully and free¬ 
ly to discuss the subject of emancipation, 
and to indulge hopes of its early accomplish¬ 
ment; but it at length became the fashion 
to circulate inflammatory publications and 
exciting pictures through the mails, and to 
deal in denunciations against Slavery, and 
even to pronounce the Constitution framed 
by the wisdom of our fathers to be “ a ref¬ 
uge of lies—an agreement with hell, and a 
covenant with death.” The public mind 
of the slave States became inflamed ; and 
although Kentucky’s favorite son put him- 






6 


self at the head of the emancipation move¬ 
ment in 1849, in that State, yet his name, 
though “a tower of strength,” was scarcely 
sufficient to prevent the defeat of a single 
emancipation candidate for the Convention ; 
and whoever will be at the pains to consult 
the present laws of Kentucky, will perceive 
that the whole subject is in a worse condi¬ 
tion there than it was a quarter of a century 
ago. I refer to the Revised Statutes of 
Kentucky, 1852, page 643 to 648. 

Slavery is not, however, destined to be 
perpetual in this country ; a great deal has 
been done for the colored people of the 
United States, by the mild, subduing power 
of the gospel—and he thanked God that he 
looked forward to the day when freedom 
should be universal, and Christianity will 
have worked out her legitimate results, and 
the clank of the last chain shall be heard, 
and the last groan of oppressed humanity 
die away. But rashness, denunciation, and 
violence will accomplish nothing towards 
bringing about this great consummation. 

1 will now attend for a moment to those 
who have rung the changes on the word 
“extirpation.” One of the speakers had 
treated lightly the Pastoral Address of the 
General Conference of 1836, in sneering at 
the manner in which our Church has extir¬ 
pated Slavery. I am willing to endorse the 
Pastoral Address—and will read its language 
from Banks’ History of the Methodist Epis¬ 
copal Church, page 250, vol. 4th—I read as 
follows from the Pastoral Address of the Gen¬ 
eral Conference, held at Cincinnati in 1836. 

“ It cannot be unknown to you that tiie 
question of slavery in these United States, 
by the constitutional compact which binds 
us together as a nation, is left to be regu¬ 
lated by the several State Legislatures them¬ 
selves, and thereby is put beyond the control 
of the General Government, as well as that 
of all ecclesiastical bodies; it being manifest 
that in the slaveholding States themselves 
the entire responsibility of its existence, 
or non-existence, rest with those State Le¬ 
gislatures. Those facts, which are only 
mentioned here as a reason for the friendly 
advice which we wish to give you, constrain 
us as your pastors, who are called to watch 
over your souls, as those who must give an 
account, to exhort you to abstain from all 
abolition movements and associations, and 
to refrain from patronizing any of their 
publications, and especially from those of 
that inflammatory character which denounce, 
in unmeasured terms, those of their breth¬ 
ren who take the liberty to differ from them. 
Those of you w'ho may have honest scruples 
as to the lawfulness of slavery, considered 
as an abstract principle of moral right and 
wrong, if you must speak your sentiments, 
would do much better to express yourselves 
in those terms of respect and affection which 
evince a sincere sympathy for those of your 
brethren who are necessarily, and in some 
instances reluctantly, associated with slave¬ 
ry in the States where it exists, than to in¬ 
dulge in harsh censures and denunciations, 
and in those fruitless efforts which, instead 


of lightening the burden of the slave, oniv 
tend to make his condition the more irksom^ 
and distressing. 

“ From every view of the subject which 
we have been able to take, and from the 
most calm and dispassionate survey of the 
whole ground, we have come to the solemn 
conviction that the only safe, scriptural, and 
prudent way for us, both as ministers and 
people, to take, is wholly to refrain from 
this agitating subject, which is now covuls- 
ing the country, and consequently the 
church, from end to end, by calling forth in¬ 
flammatory speeches, papers and pamphlets. 

“ While we cheerfully accord to all such 
all the sincerity they ask for their belief and 
motives, we cannot but disapprove of their 
i measures, as alike destructive to the peace 
of the church and to the happiness of the 
slave himself.” 

I believe, said Mr. S., that the Pastoral 
Address is as wise and wholesome in its ad¬ 
vice now as in 1836. 

1 hat is the doctrine, that Slavery is a 
State Institution. The Church cannot abo¬ 
lish it, the Congress of the United States 
cannot free a single slave. Nothing has 
pained me so much during these debates as 
the attack on the Fathers of the Church, 
most of whom were in their graves before 
those who now arraign their motives and 
policy were born. Bishop Asbury travelled 
through summers heat and winters cold,from 
Maine to Georgia, not as we do in the rail 
car at the rate of thirty miles an hour, but 
on horseback, through the paths of the wild¬ 
erness, from the mountains to the rice plan¬ 
tations of the South. Our learned professors, 
and presidents of Colleges, shut up in their 
cloisters, undertake to tell us that they have 
just as many facilities for forming a sound 
practical judgment in regard to this per¬ 
plexing question, as Mr. Asbury had, when 
he studied the practical workings of the 
Church in the cane brakes and rice fields. 
He (Mr. Asbury) was a brave man. He 
came and stood by our fathers in the storms 
of the revolutionary war, and while others 
afrighted fled, he stood at his post of danger 
and duty. He traversed the country, and 
witnessed the conversion of thousands to 
God, both free and slaves; and just forty 
years ago, in 1816, he sank quietly into his 
grave, in King George’s country, Virginia. 

“Like some broad river widening towards the sea, 

Calm and grandly life joined eternity.” 

Thus, full of years, worn down with toil, 
the aged veteran of the cross laid him down 
to rest, and the tears of thousands, white 
and black, bedewed his grave. 

Are we to be told by young men, that this 
apostle of Methodism “would weep if he 
were here and witnessed the effects of his 
policy”—the church, involved as she is, and 
always has been with slavery ? Our fathers 
had grace enough to go back, when they took a 
xcrong step. It is reported of Bishop Me 
Kendree that in administering comfort to an 
aged brother, who felt that he was pushed 
aside by some young brilliant preacher, said, 
“ the young men are more eloquent, they 





7 


can out preach U9 and out-vote us, but it is j 
a great thing to have grace to retire with 
grace.” When our fathers found that the 
provisions of the Christmas Conference could 
not be carried out, they suspended those 
provisions for six months, and afterwards 
indefinitely. 

Have l dreamed it, Mr. President? Is it 
so, that 1 stand here to defend these worthy 
men and their policy? If Bishop Asbury, 
Dr. Coke, Freeborn Garretson, Joshua Wells, 
Rozal and Pickering, must have their acts 
and policy called in question, let it be dono 
by gray hairs, and not by young men who 
had not gotten out of their nurses arms 
when Bishop Asbury went to his reward. 
This aggressive spirit has no respect for 
age or experience. 

The time was when Bishop Asbury could 
come down from the chair and offer a mo¬ 
tion, and advocate it, too. We have, sir, a 
moderate Episcopacy. It is, I think, getting 
quite moderate, and more so every year. 
The Bishops now cannot even make a mod¬ 
est suggestion that the General Conference 
had not a constitutional right to make a new 
test of membership, but they must be beard¬ 
ed and charged with “pre-judging the ques¬ 
tion.” And we not only hear of a disposi¬ 
tion to over-ride the constitution, but we 
hear talk of “ dissolving Conferences, such 
as the Missouri, Arkansas, and Kentucky,” 
because, forsooth, it costs money to sustain 
these Conferences. We have yet to learn 
that the souls of men are to be estimated by 
dollars and cents. It is alleged that they 
have had but a small increase. If you will 
look at the general minutes you will find 
that two Conferences north of Mason’s and 
Dixon’s line, on a basis of 31,000 members, 
show a less increase of members than these 
poor Conferences do upon a basis of only 
10,000 members. The Baltimore alone con¬ 
tributes annually to the Missionary Society 
near $30,000, while there is allowed her for 
domestic missions the pitiful sum of $2,250. 

We who are on the border are a very un¬ 
fortunate class of persons—not acceptable to 
extremists on either hand. On the one hand 
we are held to be Abolitionists, and on the 
other charged with being pro-slavery. We 
stand, sir, where our fathers stood, upon the 
platform of the Constitution and the Discip¬ 
line,and we think we are right, exactly right. 

I once advised an arbitration between two 
church members to settle a controversy 
about property. The arbitration was con¬ 
ducted as the Discipline directs, and when 
the award was rendered it displeased both 
parties. I informed them that I was fully 
satisfied that the arbitrators had done exact 
justice ; inasmuch as neither of them liked 
the award, I should see that they complied, 
or were excluded from the Church, accord¬ 
ing to the provisions of the Discipline. 
They did comply and there was an end to 
the controversy. 

This is just our case, we cannot please the 
extremeists of the South, and we cannot 
please our brethren East,North,and N.West. 

In this condition if we should be driven to 


the wall, the injury and wrong must be upon 
those who have forced it upon us. 

If our brethren will let us alone, and they 
want some outlet for their philanthropy, I 
would respectfully suggest to them to correct the 
social evils at thoir oion doors; this they can do 
legitimately , without disturbing the peace of the 
Church, or putting at hazard the integrity of 
the Union. 

I know, Mr. President, that human nature 
is a “busy institution,” and our brethren 
who will be doing something had better turn 
their attention to ameliorate the condition of 
the free colored population, and to the aboli- 
tb n of the Black Laws upon the statute 
books of the free States. 

I wonder, sir, how much interest our Ohio 
brethren take in wiping from the statute 
books of that State, the disgraceful statutes 
in relation to free blacks, which have only 
been expunged, as it were, yesterday. 

And I should like to class lead our zealous 
Indiana brethren, to ascertain how many of 
them voted for the exclusion of colored free 
men from that State, when the clause of ex¬ 
clusion in the constitution received a ma¬ 
jority of over 100,000 votes. 

Here Dr. McClintock asked Mr. S. if he 
meant that the abolition of the black laws 
was to be effected by the Conference? 

By no means, said Mr. S., that is not the 
place ; I mean at the ballot-box, in their ca¬ 
pacity as citizens. Conferences have noth¬ 
ing to do with State laws, and I have only 
named the matter here in order to show our 
aggressive brethren that they have work 
enough at home if they will do it, without 
troubling us about an evil which we have no 
power to correct. 

He was not done yet. He would ask his 
brethren from Vermont what they had done 
with their laws for whipping strangers who 
would return to the State after being or¬ 
dered out by the overseers of the poor. 

Here a brother from Vermont said he did 
not know of any such law. 

Mr. S. replied, you may not know of it, 
and I hope it has been abolished, but it was 
on the statute in 1808—laws of Vermont, 
1808, vol. 1, page 384 and 402. 

Mr. S. said—instead of exercising so much 
vicarious repentence about other men’s sins 
within the slave States, he would exhort 
brethren to exercise patience and faith in 
those who have the management of our 
Church interest there. He was afraid some¬ 
times that these brethren did not think any 
of us a bit better than we ought to be. If 
they think, however, that they can manage 
better than we have done, (and will satisfy 
the Bishops of that,) I hope they will be al¬ 
lowed to put their policy in operation on the 
border, by receiving transfers to our places. 

Men, Mr. President, who find fault with 
the policy of Mr. Asbury and his successors, 
in the management of the question of Sla¬ 
very, ought to know that, shut up within the 
walls of a college, or placed hundreds of 
miles from the localities of “ the great evil,” 
they have no more chance to form a sound prac¬ 
tical judgment about the wist management of the 





8 


question than Mr. Asbury would have had to 
learn “ experimental Chemistry ” in the field 
of a cotton farm, or a rice plantation. 

The great success of Methodism in the 
United States, which is without a parallel 
on the face of the earth, is demonstrative of 
the wisdom of our conservative policy— 
rapidly as our population has increased in 
this God-favored land, our Church in this 
whole country (including the North and 
South) has increased more rapidly than the 
population. I have a table prepared with 
great care by an intelligent gentleman of 
our Church, which, for want of time, I will 
not detain the Conference by reading it- it 
show r s an average increase of population by 
decades, from 1790 to 1850, of 34.44 cents 
per cent. And an average increase of Me¬ 
thodism, from 1790 to 1851, of 69.42 cents 
per cent., being more than double—this in¬ 
cludes simply the members of the Church 
North, South, East, and West, and not the 
millions of those who attend the ministry of 
our Church, but are not members. 

Now, sir, shall we forsake our policy, 
which has demonstrated its utility and wis¬ 
dom, and listen to adventurers, and enter 
upon the trial of questionable plans, and 
adopt the theories of visionaries? I hope 
not, sir; if we should, we may present an 
example of the case of the man, w r hose epi¬ 
taph was in these Avords : “ I was well, ivould 
be better, took physic, and here I lie.” We 
have heard in this debate, that the patient 
is sick, and the brethren insist on being 
alloAved “to do something, if it is ever so 
little” —just ‘‘something to show they have 
made progress, even a step.” “Progress,” 
that is the word. We do not believe, sir, 
that the Methodist Episcopal Church is “ a 
sick man;” we cannot consent to have our 
ecclesiastical Doctors try their hands in giv¬ 
ing either Allopathic or Homeopathic doses 
to this healthy and athletic giant, nor can 
we consent that our Sampson shall be shorn 
of his strength, by having abolition withes 
bound upon his limbs. 

We have had in this country an illustra¬ 
tion of the effect of attempting to benefit the 
colored people, free and slaves, by making 
non-slaveholding a test of church member¬ 
ship in the case of that exemplary people 
known as “The Friends,” or Quakers. In 
1766, some of them had purchased imported 
slaves, and despite the efforts of the society, 
there were some who held slaves in Penn¬ 
sylvania and New Jersey, as late as 1776 to 
1781. 1 quote from a publication of theirs 

made in Philadelphia in 1843, called, “A 
brief statement of the rise and progress of the tes¬ 
timony of the Religious Society of Friends 
against Slavery and the slave trade .” Pages 
21, 24, 29, 31, 34, 35. 

They had been early in the slave States, 
as early as 1696, more than fifty years before 
a single Methodist came to these shores, 
even before Mr. Wesley was born: but put¬ 
ting themselves upon the ultra platform now 
sought to be introduced here, they have 
melted away in the slave States as snow 
before the midday sun. It will be said, I 
know that their want of success has been 
owing to other causes, mainly : unsoundness 


in doctrine, &c. We have yet to learn that 
Barckley, Penn, and the ‘ orthodox Friends,’ 
are less sound in doctrine than we are, and 
that they are persons of great excellence of 
character, all fully admit. But what have 
they done for either the slaves or free colored 
population of the United States? 

We have heard of “outside pressure,” 
and we are told that “ the sentiment of the 
church is not up to the public sentiment of 
the country.” I doubt not, sir, that there 
are many in the country, who would like to 
push our church forward to rash and inju¬ 
rious measures knowing that they would find 
their own advantage in placing our church 
in a false position. Our course is that of 
the Apostles, and Fathers of our church, 
and we cannot come down <o meet the de¬ 
mands of the “outside pressure.” 

If it were possible to pass the measure 
now before us—you might make a “sectional 
church,” —you might chafe and iceaken the 
bonds of the Union, but no good could be 
achieved for the master or the slave, and no 
advance step taken for emancipation. 

1 have been looking into the General Min¬ 
utes, sir, to see what influence the Confer¬ 
ences have in the free States over the colored 
population of the country, and to my surprise 
I find that in all those Conferences they 
have less than 900 colored members in the 
Church, while the Conferences having slave 
territory, in whole or in part, have an ag¬ 
gregate of 29,000 colored members, in ad¬ 
dition to 172,000 colored members in the 
church South. Where have all the free 
colored people strayed to? Have they lost 
confidence in the “progressive” brethren? 

I once heard the Rev. Joseph Cartwright, 
(a talented and excellent colored preacher,) 
say that he had always found that those 
colored congregations that were under the 
charge of a white elder, were better in¬ 
structed, and more regular and exemplary, 
than those otherwise provided for. 

Our brethren may possibly have an ac¬ 
count to settle in this quarter, which may 
not be so easy of adjustment. 

In conclusion, Mr. President, who asks 
for this change of Discipline? Who of our 
790,000 church members asked it? Have 
one in ten or one in fifty asked for it? How 
many have petitioned this General Confer¬ 
ence? I thought the committee on Slavery 
were to report the number', but they have 
not. Upon examination it will be found 
that the Conferences whose delegates ask a 
change, even if they all were to speak, 
(which they do not, even one in ten,) they 
are a minority of more than 40,000, as com¬ 
pared with the Conferences whose delegates 
ask for no change. 

The people which he in part represented 
ask for no change—all they ask is peace and 
quiet, and to be let alone. They have and 
love the Discipline, and in the sight and 
fear of God, they will do the best they can 
to fulfil, for the bond and free, the great 
mission of Methodism, “to spread Scriptu¬ 
ral holiness all over these lands.” 

Mr. Slicer closed, thanking the Confer¬ 
ence profoundly for the patience with which 
I they had listened to his remarks. 




THE MASSACHUSETTS RESOLUTIONS ON THE SUMNER ASSAULT, 

AND THE SLAVERY ISgUE. 


SPEECHES OF SENATORS 

v,&sn *' 

BUTLER, EVANS, AND 





11 


DELIVERED 


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 


June 12, 1856. 

Hon. A. P. BUTLER addressed the Senate 
as follows: 

Mr. President: The occasion and the subject 
upon which 1 am about to address the Senate 
of the United States, at this time, have been 
brought about by events over which I have had 
no control, and could have had none—events 
which have grown out of the commencement of 
a controversy for which the Senator from Mas¬ 
sachusetts (not now in his seat) [Mr. Sumner] 
should be held exclusively responsible to his 
country and his God. He has delivered a speech 
the most extraordinary that has ever had utter¬ 
ance in any deliberative body recognizing the 
sanctions of law and decency. When it was de¬ 
livered 1 was not here; and if I had been present, 
what 1 should have done it would be perfectly 
idle for me now to say; because no one can sub¬ 
stitute the deliberations of a subsequent period 
for such as might have influenced him at another 
time and under different circumstances. My 
impression now is that, if I had been present, I 
should have asked the Senator, before he finished 
some of the paragraphs personally applicable to 
myself, to pause; and if he had gone on, I would 
have demanded of him, the next morning, that he 
should review that speech, and retract or modify 
it, so as to bring it within the sphere of parlia¬ 
mentary propriety. If he had refused this, what 
I would have done I cannot say; yet I can say 
that I would not have submitted to it. But what 
mode of redress I should have resorted to, I can¬ 
not tell. 

I wish I had been here. I would have at least 
assumed, as I ought to have done on my respons¬ 
ibility as a Senator, and on my responsibility as 
a representative of South Carolina, all the con¬ 
sequences, let them lead where they might; but 
instead of that, the speech has involved his own 
friends, and his own colleague. It has involved 
my friends. It has involved one of them to such 
an extent that, at this time, he has been obliged 
to put his fortune and his life at stake. And, sir, 

C-£rf^M 
e 1 


if the consequences which are likely to flow from 
that speech hereafter shall end in blood and vio¬ 
lence, that Senator should be prepared to repent 
in sackcloth and ashes. 

Now, 1 pronounce a judgment on that speech 
which will be adopted by the public. I am as 
certain as I am speeiking that it is now condemned 
by the public mind, and by posterity it will be 
consigned to infamy, for the mischievous conse¬ 
quences which have flowed from it already, and 
such as are likely yet to disturb the peace and 
repose of the country. 

I said nothing, Mr. President, at any period of 
my life—much less did I say anything in the 
course of the debate to which the Senator from 
Massachusetts purports to have made a reply— 
that could have called for, much less have justi¬ 
fied, the gross personal abuse, traduction, and 
calumny, to which he has resorted. 

When I was at my little farm, enjoying myself 
quietly, and as I thought had taken refuge from 
the strifes and contentions of the Senate, and of 
politics, a message was brought to me that my 
kinsman had been involved in a difficulty on my 
account. It was so vague that I did not know 
how to account for it. I was far from any tele¬ 
graphic communication. I did not wait five min¬ 
utes before I left home to put myself within the 
reach of such information—and garbled even that 
was—as was accessible. I traveled four days 
continuously to Washington; and when I arrived 
l found the very subject under discussion which 
had given me so much anxiety; and it has been 
a source of the deepest concern to my feelings 
ever since I heard of it, on many accounts—on 
account of my country, and on account of the 
honor and the safety of my kinsman. When I 
arrived here, I found the subject under discussion. 
I went to the Senate worn down by travel; and I 
then gave notice that, when the resolutions from 
Massachusetts should be presented, I would speak 
to them, as coming from a Commonwealth whose 
history, and whose lessons of history, had in¬ 
spired me w r ith the very highest admiration — l 
would speak to them from a respect to a Com- 

3 — 

















== r— ■ — ■“ ■- ..~~= 

monwealth, whilst, perhaps, the Senator who had 
been the cause of their introduction ought not to 
deserve my notice, and would not have received it. 

Well, sir, days passed, and those resolutions 
were not presented. Now, they have been pre¬ 
sented, and presented in a different way from any 
that I have ever known to be submitted from any 
Commonwealth before. They were not presented 
by one of its Senators, but were sent directly to 
the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of 
the House of Representatives. I waited for some 
time with the expectation that, whan these resolu¬ 
tions should come, I would acquit myself of the 
painful task which circumstances had devolved 
upon me. They did not come until yesterday— 
more than two weeks after their adoption. 

In the mean time — on Monday last — I gave 
notice that I would address the Senate to-day, 
under the confident belief, not that the present 
Senator [Mr. Wilson] would be here—because I 
have nothing to do with him—but that the Sen¬ 
ator who has been the aggressor, the criminal 
aggressor, in this matter, would be present; and 
if 1 give credence to the testimony of Dr. Boyle, 

I see no reason why he should not be present. 
For anything that appears in that testimony, if 
he had been an officer of the Army, and had not 
appeared the next day on the battle-field, he 
would have deserved to be cashiered. 

In proceeding with his preliminary remarks, 
he expresses his surprise that the Senator from 
Massachusetts should have aimed his assaults at 
him [Mr. Butler] individually and at South 
Carolina, and continues: 

Now, sir, I proceed to make my points; and I 
shall show that what the Senator said of myself, 
and South Carolina, was not in response to any¬ 
thing which I said; that he has gone outside the 
record to bring into the debate matters which did 
not legitimately belong to it by association or 
connection. 

I will maintain these three propositions so 
certainly that, in my opinion, there will not be 
one mind here, unless it be disposed to mor¬ 
ally perjure itself, which will not acquiesce in 
them. I will show that his remarks upon me 
and South Carolina were untrue and unjust; the 
language used was licentious; the spirit which 
prompted it was aggressive; and the whole tenor 
and tone of the speech was malignant and insult¬ 
ing. 

I n no speech which I have made during this 
session did I name Massachusetts or South 
Carolina. This is a most remarkable thing con¬ 
sidering the nature of the debate. I have culled 
what I said, and I have not introduced South 
Carolina by name into the debate, nor have I 
brought in Massachusetts. Yet, sir, this Senator 
alludes to me in two paragraphs. I should like 
to know why he uid not finish my picture in one 
sketch on the first day, when he spoke of me as | 
being “ Don Quixote in love with slavery as a I 
mistress, because she was a harlot.” I dislike 
to repeat the obscenity of his illustration. When 
he bad me under review then, why did he not 
finish me in that general sketch ? He took another 
night; and during that night the chaotic concep¬ 
tions either emanated from his own mind or were 
suggested to it by those busy people who seem > 


to have control over him; and then it was that he 
made this celebrated attack on me, zissailing my 
reputation as a gentleman of veracity: 

“ With regret, I come again upon the Senator from South 
Carolina, [Mr. Butler,] who, omnipresent in this clebato, 
overflowed with rage at the simple suggestion that Kansas 
had applied for admission as a State ; and, with incoherent 
phrases, discharged the loose expectoration of his speech, 
now upon her representative, and then upon her peoplo. 
There was no extravagance of the aueient parliamentary 
debate which he did not repeat; nor waa there any possible 
deviation from the truth which he did not make, with so 
much of passion, I am glad to add, as to save him from the 
suspicion of intentional aberration. But the Senator touches 
nothing which he does not disfigure—with error, sometimes 
of principle, sometimes of fact. lie shows an incapacity 
of accuracy, whether in stating the Constitution or in stating 
the law, whether in the details of statistics or the diversions 
of scholarship. lie cannot ope his mouth, but out there 
flies a blunder. Surely he ought to be familiar with the life 
of Franklin ; and yet he referred to this household charac¬ 
ter, while acting as agent of our fathers in England, as 
above suspicion; and this was done that he might give point 
to a false contrast with the agent of Kansas—not knowing 
that, however they may differ in genius and fame, in this 
experience they arealike: that Franklin, when intrusted 
with the petition of Massachusetts Bay, was assaulted by a 
foul-mouthed speaker, where he could not be heard in de¬ 
fense, and denounced as a ‘ thief,’ even as the agent of 
Kansas has been assaulted on this floor, and denounced as 
a‘forger.’ And let not the vanity of the Senator,be in¬ 
spired by the parallel with the British statesmen of that 
day ; for it is only in hostility to freedom ffiat any parallel 
can be recognized. 

“But it is against the people of Kansas that the sensibil¬ 
ities of the Senator are particularly aroused. Coming, as 
he announces, ‘from a State’—ay,sir,from South Carolina 
—he turns with lordly disgust from this newly-formed com¬ 
munity, which he will not recognize even as ‘a body- 
politic.’ Pray, sir, by what title does he indulge in this 
egotism ? Has he read the history of ‘ the State’ which he 
represents? He cannot surely have forgotten its shameful 
imbecility from Slavery, confessed throughout the Revolu¬ 
tion, followed by its more shainefhl assumptions for Slavery 
since. He cannot have forgotten its wretched persistence 
in the slave trade as the very apple of its eye, and the con¬ 
dition of its participation in the Union, lie cannot have 
forgotten its Constitution, which is republican only in name, 
confirming power in the hands of the few, and founding the 
qualifications of its legislators on • a settled freehold estate 
and ten negroes.’ Aiid yet the Senator, to whom that 
‘ State’ has in part committed the guardianship of its good 
name, instead of moving, with backward treading steps, 
to cover its nakedness, rushes forward, in the very ecstasy 
of madness, to expose it by provoking a comparison with 
Kansas 1” 

He charges the Senator from Massachusetts 
with garbling, misquoting, and misconstruing the 
constitution of South Carolina; defends the 
State and her revolutionary history from the 
aspersions of Mr. Sumner, and proceeds: 

But, sir, the Senator undertakes to say that, 
because I have advocated here the constitutional 
rights of the South and the equality of these 
States, I subjected myself to an imputation which 
I shall not read myself. It bears his own handi¬ 
work. Mr. Secretary, I beg your pardon for 
asking you to read such a thing as this, but it ie 
your duty, not mine. 

The Secretary read the following extract from 
Mr. Sumner’s speech of May 19: 

“ But, before entering upon the argument, I must say 
something of a general character, particularly in response 
to what has fallen from Senators who have raised them¬ 
selves to eminence on this floor in championship of human 
wrongs; I mean the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. 
Bcjtler,] and the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Douglas,] 
who, though unlike as Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, 
yet, like this couple, sally forth together in the same ad¬ 
venture. T regret much to miss the elder Senator from hia 
seat; but the cause, against which he has run a tilt, with 
such activity of animosity, demands that the opportunity of 










3 


exposing him should not be lost; and it is for the cause 
that 1 speak. The Senator from South Carolina has read 
many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous 
knight, with sentiments of honor and courage. Of course 
lie has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, 
and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him ; 
though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his 
eight—I mean the harlot Slavery. For her, his tongue is 
always profuse in words. Let her be impeached in char¬ 
acter, or any proposition made to shut her out from the ex¬ 
tension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner 
or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this Senator. 
The frenzy of Don Quixote, in behalf of his wench Dul- 
cinea del Toboso, is all surpassed. The asserted rights of 
Slaver}'', which shock equality of all kinds, are cloaked by 
a fantastic claim of equality. If the slave States cannot 
enjoy what, in mockery of the great fathers of the Republic, 
he misnames equality under the Constitution—in other 
words, the full power in the National Territories to compel 
fellow-men to unpaid toil, to separate husband and wife, 
and to sell little children at the auction block—then, sir, 
the chivalrie Senator will conduct the State of South Car¬ 
olina out of the Union! Heroic knight! Exalted Senator! 
A second Moses come for a second exodus! 

u But not content with this poor menace, which we have 
been twice told was ‘ measured,’ the Senator, in the unre¬ 
strained chivalry of his nature, has undertaken to apply 
opprobrious words to those who differ from him on this 
floor. He calls them ‘sectional and fanaticaland oppo¬ 
sition to the usurpation in Kansas, he denounces as 1 an 
uncalculating fanaticism.’ To be sure, these charges lack 
ail grace of originality, and all sentiment of truth ; but the 
adventurous Senator does not hesitate. He is the uncom¬ 
promising, unblushing representative on this floor of a 
flagrant sectionalism, which now domineers over the Repub¬ 
lic, and yet with a ludicrous ignorance of his own position 
—unable to see himself as others see him—or with an 
effrontery which even his white head ought not to protect 
from rebuke, he applies to those here who resist his section¬ 
alism the very epithet which designates himself. The men 
who strive to bring back the Government to its original 
policy, when Freedom and not Slavery was national while 
Slavery and not Freedom was sectional, he arraigns as 
sectional. This will not do. It involves too great a per¬ 
version of terms. 1 tell that Senator, that it is to himself, 
and to the ‘ organization’ of which he is the 1 committed 
advocate,’ that this epithet belongs. I now fasten it upon 
them. For myself, I care little for names; but since the 
question has been raised here, I affirm that the Republican 
party of the Union is in no just sense sectional, but, more 
than any other party, national; and that it now goes forth 
to dislodge from the high places of the Government the 
tyrannical sectionalism of which the Senator from South 
Carolina is one of the maddest zealots.” 

Mr. BUTLER. Now, Mr. President, how any 
man, who has not been excluded from society, 
could use such an illustration on this floor, I 
know not. I do not see how any man could 
obtain the consent of his own conscience to rise 
in the presence of a gallery of ladies and give to 
slavery the personification of a “ mistress,” and 
say that I loved her because she was a “ harlot.?’ 
I beg pardon for repeating it. What in the name 
of justice and decency could have ever led that 
man to use such language ? That is the language 
of Cleon. It is a somewhat remarkable thing, 
that in the speech which I delivered here in reply 
to the Senator from New Hampshire, I used the 
word “ slavery” but in one paragraph, and that 
was in response to a remark of his speaking of 
the Supreme Court as the citadel of slavery. I 
rebuked him. I said I would rather regard that 
court as the defender or as the promontory of the 
Constitution; and that he was at too great a 
distance ever to reach it by any arrow which he 
could discharge from his bow. Sectionalism was 
not in the speech itself. When I spoke of indi¬ 
viduals in a particular section, I did not speak in' 
terms which would imply or convey the idea that 
I meant the public of the slaveholding and non— 
slaveholding States. I confined it to that section 
w ho are suffering at this time, I hope to a limited 


extent, and who are burning their fires until they 
will be reduced to the caustic ashes of disappoint¬ 
ment and disgrace. I did not speak of sectionalism 
in an v other point of view. Sir, there are men on 
this floor who I believe honestly differ from me. 
I would not make any personal allusion to them. 
Far from widening this controversy, the object of 
my speech was to appease public sentiment. In 
the course of it I ventured to say, what I had 
never said before, that the man does not live 
who could look without concern at the conse¬ 
quences of a separation of these States effected 
in blood. I remarked that I would not say there 
was not intelligence enough ultimately to form 
new governments and make them a union of con¬ 
federacies. Sir, in that speech I attempted to 
throw oil upon the troubled waters. My friends 
in some measure blamed me for the tone of my 
remarks. The so-called reply was already in the 
sap, the poisonous sap behind, and the Senator 
had to use his speech as a conduit to pour it out 
on me and on the country, when he had less oc¬ 
casion than was presented by any speech which 
I ever before made. Anybody who says we are 
incapable of preserving free institutions, I should 
be inclined to consider a slanderer on free insti¬ 
tutions; but I will never agree to live in any Gov¬ 
ernment that has not some operative and enforci- 
ble provisions of a constitution to preserve my 
rights. If the Government were as it formerly 
was, South Carolina and Massachusetts having 
a common interest, do you think the Senator 
could arise as an adversary to be applauded by 
his people ? There was a time, sir, when his peo¬ 
ple would have disgraced him forthat very speech. 
At this day, 1 do not say they will acquit my 
kinsman; I dare say they will not; but the time is 
coming when there will be but one opinion—that 
that is the most mischievous speech which has, 
ever been delivered in this country, and has in¬ 
volved more innocent persons. If the contest 
goes on upon such issues as it makes, blood must 
follow. I do not look on any such scenes with 
pleasure. I have not temper for them, though 
when a young man I might, perhaps, not have 
been indisposed to embark in the hazards of con¬ 
tests. 

Whilst upon this point, I may remark that 
Josiah Quincy, for whom I have heretofore had 
a great respect, says the Senator has not gone a 
1 hair’s breadth beyond the line of duty and truth. 
After'Vny explanations here I hardly think he will 
say so. He is the only man of high respectabil¬ 
ity whom I have yet seen or heard make such a 
declaration. He made it, too, with a reproach 
that I was sorry to see escape from such a man. 
He said, alluding to the fracas in the Senate- 
.house, not in the Senate, that it is only a part of 
that tribe who carry bowie-knives and revolvers. 
Sir, I never wore a secret weapon in my life. I 
am not going to discuss the fact that I have used 
open weapons; and that is the only way I choose 
to deal, but that is not the way we can get them 
to deal with us. 

Unfortunately, I have had scenes of that kind 
which I have regretted all my life to some extent. 

[ am mortified to hear such a man as Quincy 
making a charge upon a whole section, when I 
question if there is a southern man in this House 
with a pistol or bowie-knife in his pocket. He 
has gone out of the way gratuity ’ j to say tl at 


















4 


we are of a “ breed” who wear them as part of 
our dress. I am sorry to see such things creep¬ 
ing into the public mind. They mortify me; 
they annoy me. 

But now I come to the resolutions of Massa¬ 
chusetts. I ask that they be read. 

The Secretary read them as follows: 
commonwealth of Massachusetts. In the year 1856. 
Resolves concerning the recent assault upon the Hon. 

, Charles Sumner, at Washington. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, That we have received 
with deep concern, information of the recent violent assault 
committed in the Senate Chamber at Washington, upon 
the person of the Hon. Charles Sumner, one of our Sena¬ 
tors in Congress, by Preston S. Brooks, a member of the 
Jlpuse of Representatives from South Carolina;—an assault 
which no provocation could justify—brutal and cowardly in 
itself—a gross breach of parliamentary privilege—a ruthless 
attack upon the liberty of speech—an outrage of the decen¬ 
cies of civilized life, and an indignity to the Commonwealth 
of Massachusetts. 

Resolved , That the Legislature of Massachusetts, in the 
name of her free and enlightened people, demands for her 
representatives in the National Legislature entire freedom 
of speech, and will uphold them in the proper exercise of 
that essential right of American citizens. 

Resolved, That we approve of Mr. Sumner’s manliness 
and courage in his earnest and fearless declaration of free 
principles, and his defense of human rights and free terri¬ 
tory. 

Resolved, That the Legislature of Massachusetts is imper¬ 
atively called upon by the plainest dictates of duty, from a 
decent regard to the rights of her citizens, and respect for her 
character as a sovereign State, to demand, and the Legis¬ 
lature of Massachusetts hereby does demand, of the national 
Congress, a prompt and strict investigation into the recent 
assault upon Senator Sumner, and the expulsion by the 
House of Representatives of Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, 
and any other member concerned with him in said assault. 

Resolved, That his excellency the Governor be requested 
to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolves to the President 
of the Senate, and Speaker of the House of Representa¬ 
tives, and to each of the Senators and members of the 
Hpuse of Representatives from this Commonwealth, in the 
Congress of the United States. 

House of Representatives, ilfai/29, 1856. 

Passed. CHARLES A. PHELPS, Speaker. 


Passed. 


Approved. 


In Senate, May 30, 1856. 
EL IIIU C. BAKER, President. 

May 31,1856. 
HENRY J. GARDINER. 


Secretary’s Office, 
Boston, May 31, 1855. 

I certify the foregoing to be a true copy of the original 
resolves. 

Attest: FRANCIS DeWITT, 

Secretary of the Commonwealth. 

Mr. BUTLER. These resolutions give rise to 
more serious reflection than anything which has 
occurred to me in my time. I have been in the 
Senate for ten years, and this is the first occasion 
that 1 have ever seen one of the sovereign States 
of the Union taking cognizance of matters which 
occurred in Congress, with a view to influence 
the judgment of Congress in relation to one of 
their members. This is the first occasion of the 
Kind in the history of the country. It has been 
done from an ex parte view of the subject; for it 
is now very apparent that the resolutions of 
Massachusetts were introduced and passed with¬ 
out regard to the evidence. These resolutions 
anticipated and asserted what may not be true— 
what the public may not think true—what the 
Senate may not think true—what the House of 
Representatives may not think true; and yet the 
sovereign State of Massachusetts, before .there 


was any evidence, indicted my relative upon 
rumor—a measure which would have taken Staf¬ 
ford to the gallows. What! sir; indict a man in 
the language of these resolutions upon the rumor 
of newspapers? These resolutions—I say it more 
in sorrow than in anger—betray a temper and 
precipitancy of judgment that do not look like 
having a regard to that dignity which is asso¬ 
ciated with justice. I shall speak respectfully. 
So far as I have spoken of Massachusetts hither¬ 
to, no exception can be taken; but, when I speak 
of Massachusetts now, it must be of Massachu¬ 
setts as she has sent forth these resolutions— 
under the influence of a feeling which pervades 
her—under the influence of a sentiment which 
denied Daniel Webster the right to speak in 
Faneuil Hall, and threw off the coffin of Lincoln 
because he had fallen in performing his profes¬ 
sional duties in the cause of his country. Boston 
now is not the Boston that she was when Han¬ 
cock wrote, and Adams spoke, and Otis thought, 
and Warren fell. They would not recognize her. 
She is no more the same. Yet, from that very hot¬ 
bed of bitter feeling to the South, and*especially 
to South Carolina, have I to look for the feelings 
which dictated these resolutions. I have to meet 
an indictment—for what? It is said that the lib¬ 
erty of speech has been violated. Upon that point 
I intend to deliver some remarks which, whether 
they be correct or not, I shall throw out. Our 
ancestors were a people of hardy morality. Gen¬ 
erally, when they spoke, they spoke directly from 
the heart. Such a thing as printing speeches 
beforehand, or having them printed without being 
uttered in the Senate, was unheard of in their day. 
They were men who stood on their legs, and 
spoke out. They had hearts and mouths. They 
did not resort to the appliances of paper and print¬ 
ing before they brought their speeches here. If 
the Senator from Massachusetts were present, 
and would answer me, I would put the question 
to him, “Was not that speech of yours printed 
and published before you spoke it in the Senate 
of the United States?” What is the meaning of 
that provision of the Constitution, which says 
that a Senator, or a member of the House, for 
any speech or debate in either House, shall 
not be questioned in any other place ? Does it 
mean to give the Congress of the United States 
the power of deciding what is privilege without 
the courts questioning it? If so, it goes far bo- 
yond the settled doctrine in Great Britain at this 
day, which was maintained by Chief Justice 
Denman, in the case of Stockdale vs. Hansard; 
and that case has much to do with the matter now 
under consideration. Hansard had undertaken, 
under the authority of Parliament, to publish a 
book which contained a libel. Without such 
license or privilege, all agreed that he was respons¬ 
ible. The English blouse of Commons said 
that having granted him the license, it was their 
privilege. Chief Justice Denman took cognizance 
of the case, on the broad ground that the courts 
could determine what was privilege under the 
Constitution of England. He said: “as a com¬ 
mon law judge, I will show the Parliament 
whether I am not capable of deciding on my re¬ 
sponsibility as one of the great departments of this 
Government. Can it be maintained”— and it is 
one of the most eloquent decisions I ever read— 
“that the House of Commons, by claiming a priv- 












5 


ilege, shall thereby appropriate it to themselves, 
and screen a villain from the consequence of his 
libel ?” The judge said thatalthough by the law 
of Parliament newspapers were passed through 
the country under the frank of members without 
paying postage, that privilege did not give them 
the right to make use of a newspaper as a libel. 
He uses the strong expression : “ God forbid that 
Parliament should afford such a pretext for doing 
wrong.” I say the same thing now. 

Will you tell me that a member rising here and 
handing a speech to the reporter, and telling him 
to print it, comes within the purview of the Con¬ 
stitution? Has he uttered words in debate? Will 
you tell me that a member who has made a speech 
of five sentences may append to it a newspaper 
like the Tribune, which has libeled me, and has 
the right to send through the post offices of this 
Government, and have folded by the persons em¬ 
ployed in the folding-room at the public expense, 
into my daughter’s parlor, that which would cost 
him his life if he told it to me? Has it come to 
this, that a Senator upon this floor can claim such 
an extensive privilege, under the law of Parlia¬ 
ment, that he can send off, by the twenty thousand, 
speeches to England and to the four corners of the 
globe, where I am not known, and then claim pro¬ 
tection upon the ground that he has a privilege 
which precludes him from being questioned else¬ 
where for words spoken in debate? 

* ** * * ***** 

The liberty of speech and of the press is the 
great conservative element of a Republic; it is to 
the political, what fire is to the material world, a 
subservient and affluent minister, when under the 
control of prudence and intelligence; but, when 
unchecked and unregulated, a consuming foe, 
withering and blasting everything along its path¬ 
way of ruin. Render freedom of speech tribu¬ 
tary to the proprieties, decencies, and restraints 
of social life, and you may crown it with all the 
ministries and supremacies of intellect and liberty, 
but release it from them, and it becomes a blind 
and maddened giant of evil, tearing down the 
bulwarks of social order, and desecrating the 
very sanctuary of republican liberty. What 
would you think of a reckless man who should 
set fire to his own house, or should go about 
claiming the privilege of throwing his fire wherc- 
ever he could among the most combustible ma¬ 
terials, and say he had the right to do so, on 
the ground that he was a freeman, and could do 
as he pleased. Away with such liberty! Lib¬ 
erty that is worth anything must be in the har¬ 
ness of the law. 

Liberty of speech and liberty of the press 
must have two restraints. The first is the high¬ 
est, which will always govern a class of men 
who cannot violate it—the obligations of honor, 
decency, and justice. Another restraint upon 
licentiousness is that a man may publish and 
speak what he pleases with a knowledge that 
he is amenable to the tribunals of the law for 
what he has done. Congress cannot pass any 
statute to say that men shall not write against 
religion, or against the Government, or against 
individuals. Neither can Congress pass a law, nor 
can any State pass a law depriving the tribunals 
of the country of the right of saying whether 
ou have gone beyond the limits of liberty, and 
ave used your power, under that name, with 


criminal recklessness, with a licentious indiffer¬ 
ence to the feelings of individuals and the conse¬ 
quences upon society. I do not wish to live in 
any community where it is otherwise. 

The press is losing its power, and it ought to 
lose it; for it is now beginning to be an engine 
of private revenge, and individual expression, 
instead of being a responsible organ of public 
opinion. Suppose I were to go to New York, 
and indict one of the editors there whom I could 
name, for the most atrocious libel that has ever 
been uttered upon the South. I will not name 
the editor, but he-has uttered a sentiment akin to 
one which has been expressed by the Senator 
from Massachusetts. I saw in a New York 
paper—I have alluded <to it heretofore—a state¬ 
ment that the southern States are too feeble and 
1 weak to take any part in a war—that all they can 
do is to take charge of their negroes! It said 
that if a war should take place between England 
and the United States, the English fleet would only 
have to go to the capes of the Chesapeake, and 
the effeminate masters would be kept at home. 
Fifty thousand slaves, inured to toil, could be 
mustered into service, and they would have the 
power to put their masters to the sword; and 
when the declaration of peace should come, the 
result would be the freedom of the slaves and the 
proscription of the masters ! Suppose I should 
go into the community where this libel was 
uttered, and indict a man for such a sentiment as 
this, what would be the consequence in the 
present state of public opinion ? It is idle, worse 
than idle, to talk about that as a remedy. 

Liberty of the press ! Sir, that man has franked 
twenty thousand of his speeches; and some of 
them, if I am not misinformed, were printed long 
before it was delivered. To bring him within the 
privileges of parliament is a mockery—a perfect 
mockery. 

Now, Mr. President, I approach another most 
painful part of this case, and I come to it in no 
bad-temper; for, God knows, if my heart could 
be read, there is no one who would sooner than 
myself have averted the state of things which 
now exists, if 1 could, consistently with my honor 
and the honor of the gentleman to whom I shall 
allude. The resolutions of Massachusetts under¬ 
took,before any evidence was heard, to pronounce 
sentence on Mr. Brooks. Sir, I will tell you who 
Mr. Brooks is, and why he felt so deeply in refer¬ 
ence to these abominable libels. 1 do not alluda 
to him now as my hereditary kinsman; I think 
that is the smallest view to take of the matter; but 
I am his constituent. I live in “Ninety-six”*— 
a district through which, if you pass, you will 
read upon the tombstones epitaphs which would 
reproach him for tame and ignominious submis¬ 
sion to wrong and to insult. 

He has as proud and intelligent a constituency 
as are to be found in any part of the globe. I am 
his constituent. But more than that, he has worn 
the epaulet and the sword; he has marched under 
the Palmetto banner, and his countrymen have 
awarded to him a sword for his good conduct in 
the war with Mexico. That sword was in some 
measure committed to him, that he might use 
it, when occasion required, to maintain the honor 
and the dignity of his State. When he heard of 
this speech first, and read it afterwards, this young 
man, in passing down the street, heard but ons 


















6 


sentiment, and it was, that his State and his blood 
had been insulted. He could not go into the 
drawing-room, or parlor, or into a reading-room, 
without the street commentary reproaching him. 
Wherever he went, the question was asked, 
“Has the chivalry of South Carolina escaped, and 
is'this to be a tame submission ?” What advice I 
would have given him I do not now undertake to 
say. 

But, sir, when this was said to this gentleman 
wherever he went, he felt that if something was 
not done he could not face his constituents with¬ 
out losing his usefulness, and without there being 
a taint on his honor and on his courage. He may 
have been mistaken in some respects. His 
coming into the Senate house was no option of 
his. When he formed his determination, as I 
am informed,—and I have kept aloof from con¬ 
versation with him,—I judge from the evidence 
he had no purpose to profane the Senate house. 

1 say the Senate house had been profaned before. 

1 had rather to-morrow take ten blows inflicted 
on my body, than have the gas of the rhetorician 
poured out upon my character and State. 

The Senator from Massachusetts chose to 
make his place here one from which to assail the 
history and reputation of South Carolina, and 
to assail an absent constituent of the gentleman 
who has taken redress into his own hands. In 
such a condition of things who could be placed in 
a situation more difficult? Surely, Mr. Presi¬ 
dent, something is to be pardoned to the feelings 
of a man acting under sensibility, and under the 
dictates of high honor. If any one was here, 
placed in a situation to feel the touching appeal 
made by the ghost to Hamlet, “If thou hast 
nature in thee, bear it not,” he was the man. 
Now, I ask the Secretary to read the extract 
which I have marked in the book which I send 
to him, and I do not intend to say where it comes 
from till it is read. 

The Secretary read as follows: 

“ Do not believe that I am inculcating opinions, tending 
to disturb the peace of society. On the contrary, they are 
the principles that can preserve it. It is more dangerous 
for the laws to give security to a man, disposed to commit 
outrages on the persons of his fellow-citizens, than to au¬ 
thorize those, who must otherwise meet irreparable injury, 
to defend themselves at every hazard. Men of eminent 
talents and virtue, on whose exertions, in perilous times, 
the honor and happiness of their country must depend, will 
always be liable to be degraded by every daring miscreant, 
if they cannot defend themselves from personal insult and 
outrage. Men of this description must alwa3 r s feel, that to 
submit to degradation and dishonor is impossible. Nor is 
this feeling confined to men of that eminent grade. We 
have thousands in our country who possess this spirit; and 
without them we should soon deservedly cease to exist as an 
independent nation. I respect the laws of my country, and 
revere the precepts of our holy religion; I should shudder 
at shedding human blood; I would practice moderation and 
forbearance, to avoid so terrible a calamity; yet, should I 
ever be driven to that impassable point, where degradation 
and disgrace begin, may this arm shrink palsied from its 
socket if I fail to defend my own honor!” 

Mr. BUTLER. Who uttered that sentiment? 
It is the sentiment of a gentleman whose speeches 
have always commended him to me. It is a sen¬ 
timent worthy of the ancient days of Boston when 
Dexter spoke. This is a northern man speaking; 
and I adopt his language. 1 say with him that, 
when things ‘ ‘ tend to thatimpassable point where 
degradation and disgrace begin, may my arm 
shrink palsied from its socket if I fail to defend ; 
my own honor! ” j 


Sir, that sentiment was uttered at a time when 
clergymen confined themselves to the pulpit, and 
preached against crime and vice; when they did 
not use the pulpit as a recruiting station to issue 
Sharpe’s rifles, and to mingle in all the bitter strife 
of the forum and the Agora. It was uttered when 
Boston knew how to respect the feelings of others. 
1 concur in all that is said by Mr. Dexter. I 
deprecate blood and violence. I will not utter 
all that my heart prompts me to say, for fear of 
encouraging young men; but this 1 will say, that 
no son of mine should ever submit to insult 
without satisfaction. 

At this point, on a suggestion of Mr. Clay, 
the honorable Senator yielded the floor, and the 
Senate adjourned. The day succeeding, Mr 
Butler continued: 

I said yesterday that my friend, my represent¬ 
ative, my relative, one who is associated with me 
by more ties than either of these—had taken 
redress in his own hands—had resorted to his 
own mode of redress. I said that there were con¬ 
siderations connected with the occasion which, 
though they could not justify him before a legal 
tribunal, would excuse any man of his character 
and position, representing such constituents as 
he represented, and bound in some measure to 
sympathize with the opinions of the section with 
which he is associated. It was impossible that 
he could separate himself from those conclusions 
which others might not appreciate, and some could 
not understand. But I say that gentleman dare 
not—I do not say 1 would have advised him— 
but in his estimation he could not go home and 
face such a constituency without incurring what 
is the worst of all judgments—the judgment of 
the country against a man who is placed as a sen¬ 
tinel to represent it. 

If, in the course of these proceedings and the 
events which have grown out of the speech which 
has been made by the Senator, it shall be said 
that Massachusetts can be justified by falling 
back on an opinion which will justify her Sena¬ 
tors and Representatives, it is, I must be permit¬ 
ted to say, one of the unfortunate symptoms of 
the times in x-egard to which we have no com¬ 
mon tribunal to decide between us. Sir, it seems 
to indicate a crisis when the opinion of the con¬ 
stituency of one portion of the Confederacy ap¬ 
plauds one whilst it is ready to consume and put 
to the stake another. We have always supposed 
that public opinion would be right; and sir, I 
distinguish public opinion very much from popu¬ 
lar prejudice. Popular prejudice is that which 
would consume in ignorance to-day, what it 
would repent of to-morrow. Public opinion is 
the judgment of an intelligent community, not 
formed under the excitement of the moment. It 
is not the sentiment of an irresponsible multi¬ 
tude; it is not the sentiment of an ex parte decis¬ 
ion; it is not the judgment which can find its way 
into the history of the country, or which posterity- 
will adopt as that which ought to be pronounced 
on the occasion. Public opinion is the highest, 
the gravest, the most solemn judgment to which 
any of us can defer. I would not give one cent 
| for what is called public opinion, if it depended 
j upon ex parte views of any subject. And I say 
I that the resolutions which have been sent here 











7 


from the Legislature of Massachusetts, are not 
only ex*parte, but I am sorry to say that I fear 
their' counselors were prejudice and malignity, 
even giving their counsels through the darkness 
of ignorance. I do not mean ignorance so far as 
regards the body individually, for I have no 
doubt it is intelligent enough; but I mean ignor¬ 
ance, so far as regards pronouncing a judgment 
without understanding the facts on which that 
judgment ought to turn. I say that my friend 
has been condemned without a hearing. He has 
been condemned by a judgment which, if suffered 
to go into history uncontradicted, unexamined, 
and unrefuted, would consign him to a fate which 
his character does not deserve, and shall not 
receive as long as I can stand here as his friend 
and advocate. 

But, sir, before I approach the constitutional 
and legal view of these resolutions, I must acquit 
myself of the duty which I in some measure as¬ 
sumed yesterday evening, of presenting to the 
public the circumstances under which the fracas, 
as it is termed, or the assault, on the Senator from 
Massachusetts, occurred. 

1 said that my friend and relative was not m the 
Senate when the speech was being delivered, but 
he was summoned here, as I have learned from 
others. He was excited and stung by the street j 
rumors and the street commentaries, and by the 
conversations in the parlors, where even ladies | 
pronounced a judgment; and, sir, woman never j 
fails to pronounce a judgment where honor is 
concerned, and it is always in favor of the re- j 
dress of a wrong. I would trust to the instinct I 
of woman upon subjects of this kind. He could 
not go into a parlor, or drawing room, or to a 
dinner party, where he did not find an implied 
reproach that there was an unmanly submission 
to an insult to his State and his countrymen. 
Sir, it was hard for any man, much less for a 
man of his temperament, to bear this. 

I intended to reserve a commentary whicji Was 
at once made on the speech of the Senator from 
Massachusetts as the most important part of my 
conclusion; but I find that I can apply it at no 
better time than this. I allude to the commentary 
which was pronounced at the time; not when a 
controversy had arisen; not when it was supposed 
that the temptations of an adversary, or even the 
public mind, had so far made an issue that he was 
obliged to take one side or the other; but it was 
pronounced by a gentlemai^pf distinguished posi¬ 
tion, a sage, a patriot, a man who had won laurels 
in the field, and justly deserved to be considered 
the Nestor of the Senate. Sir, the remarks made 
by the member from Michigan [Mr. Cass] struck 
me as the most consuming piece of criticism; and 
I think, taking it all into consideration, it would 
be more terrible to me than all the arguments of 
ap advocate, and all the array that could be 
brought on one side or the other. It was the tes¬ 
timony of Voluntary justice. 

“I have listened”—said that distinguished 
gentleman, [Mr. Cass,] who had worn the sword 
and the robes of the Senate, with distinction and 
dignity—“ with equal regret and surprise to the 
speech of the honorable Senator from Massachu¬ 
setts. Such a speech—the most un-American 
and unpatriotic that ever grated on ears of the 
members of this high body—as I hope never to i 
hear again, here or elsewhere. But, sir, I did not i 


rise to make any comments on the speech of the 
honorable Senator, open as it is to the highest 
censure and disapprobation. ” 

I am not as young a man as Mr. Sumner, nor 
do I pretend to be in a condition to defy or place 
myself against the testimony which would put 
into operation a current of public opinion, such 
as was pronounced by the honorable Senator 
from Michigan in his place; but, sir, I can say, 
that, with my nature, I could not have slept that 
night on my pillow with such a censure and such 
a criticism pronounced in the Senate of the Uni¬ 
ted States. I should have been ready to send a 
message to make atonement in some way. I 
should have wiped out, as far as I could, by re¬ 
pentance and atonement, the unmanly aggression 
and insult which had been offered, and was con¬ 
demned by the highest authority. I do not 
undertake to say what was the opinion of that 
Senator, but I can quote from his State the most 
consuming judgment I ever heard pronounced. 
The sentiments expressed in the paragraph to 
which I allude, and in others, show that when 
the effervescence of popular prejudice shall have 
subsided, this case might be tried, even in Massa¬ 
chusetts itself. I should not be afraid to try it 
there. They are not slaves to be governed by 
‘ fanatical madness. One of the journals there, in 
a remarkably well-written article, which I atlopt, 
says: 

“ Charles Sumner’s recent speeches in the United States 
Senate have not in any respect enhanced his reputation as a 
man, as a debater, or as a statesman. It is impossible,it 
seems to us, for any fair-minded man, who loves truth and re¬ 
gards honor and decency, to read these effusions, all reek¬ 
ing with falsehoods, bitterness and wrath, and indecency, 
without feeling that Massachusetts has been disgraced by 
an unworthy son in the Senate Chamber, before the coun¬ 
try and in the face of the world. We venture the assertion 
that no parallel to these vituperative outbursts of Sumner 
can be found in the annals of Congress, nor in the records 
of any legislative assembly in the world. Overpowering 
passion, madness itself, seems to have bereft him of liis 
senses, and left him oblivious of truth and honor, of the 
courtesies of intelligent and dignified debate, and of the 
proprieties of civilized life. 

We do not, we cannot, use terms too strong in relation 
to this matter. It is not the character of Charles Sumner 
alone that is involved. The fair fame of Massachusetts 
suffers. Whatever may have been the political errors of 
Massachusetts, she has ever, heretofore, been represented 
in the Senate of the United States, and we might also say 
in the House of Representatives, by men, statesmen— 
Webster, Winthrop, Everett, Choate, Davis, and Bates— 
who knew their rights, aud knowing dared to maintain, 
and maintained them with courtesy, dignity, and ability, in 
such a manner as to command the respect of their oppo¬ 
nents, the applause of their friends, and the admiration of 
all their countrymen.” 

I knew some of the gentlemen here named, and 
I should never be afraid to meet them in debate 
anywhere, because with them I should never 
apprehend the assaults of calumny and slander. 
I cannot be reduced to such an issue that I must 
discount calumny and slander by the language of 
a blackguard. If it be the theory of gentlemen 
that when one uses language in debate transcend- 
j ingthe sphere prescribed by propriety and justice, 
j we are to resort to the same mode for redress and 
satisfaction, I am a non-combatant; I cannot entec 
! into a controversy with gentlemen in which they 
are to bandy words. 

These remarks are not without their direction. 
I have used them to show what was the impres¬ 
sion on the public mind at the time when the 
assault was committed. Mr. Bingham, a. friend 

















8 


of Mr. Sumner I presume, says in liis testimony 
that on hearing the speech he anticipated some¬ 
thing. It was the general impression of the 
whole community that he deserved to receive a 
chastisement; or, at least, that he was bound to 
make atonement in some way for the insults and 
the wantonness of his insults to a gentleman (as 
I hope I am) then absent. This was the common 
sentiment pervading the public mind at Washing¬ 
ton. What was my friend to do ? Sue him ? Indict 
him ? If that was the mode in which he intended 
to take redress, he had better never go to South 
Carolina again. Was he to challenge him ? 
That would have been an exhibition of chivalry 
having no meaning. Although he has been upon 
the field, both in open war and in a private affair, 

I should be very sorry to see any crisis requiring 
it again. A challenge would have been an ad¬ 
vertisement to the world of his courage, when 
there was not a probability of its being tried. 
He would have made himself contemptible, and 
perhaps might have been committed to the peni¬ 
tentiary for sending a challenge. 

Then, what course was left to him to pursue? 
Mr. Sumner had opportunities enough to make 
an apology. God knows I could not have resisted 
the admonitory criticism of the distinguished 
Senator from Michigan, perhaps the most im¬ 
posing authority in the Senate. He paid no 
regard to him, and for a very good reason: his 
speech was written, and had gone out, and he 
could not contradict what he had sent forth to 
the public with malice aforethought. 

Well, sir, what did Mr. Brooks do? It is said 
he sought Mr. Sumner in the Senate Chamber. 
It is the last place in which he wished to seek ! 
him. He would have met him in an open com¬ 
bat, on a fair field, and under a free sky, at any 
time. And when the Legislature of Massachu¬ 
setts chooses to say that his conduct is cowardly, 
let her try him in any way she chooses. [Ap¬ 
plause.] 

Sir, a man who occupies a place in the Senate, 
representing a great Commonwealth like Massa¬ 
chusetts, or representing any State, as one of her 
Senators, occupies a very high position, from 
which he can send forth to the public what may 
affect the character of almost any man, except 
General Washington, or some one upon whose 
character the verdict of history has been ren¬ 
dered. There is scarcely any man who can with- ! 
stand the slander which may be pronounced from 
the Senate Chamber of the United States. For 
this reason I would never look, and I never have 
looked, beyond the public position of a member 
here, to go into his private and personal charac¬ 
ter. I would not do it, because by so doing I 
should do a wrong which I could not redress. 
Even a word escaping my tongue in this Cham¬ 
ber, as a Senator, might go far to injure a man 
where he could not correct it. We are in a position 
which requires high considerations for the regu¬ 
lation of our conduct. I agree thoroughly with 
General Jackson, that the slanderer who involves 
third persons in difficulty and danger, is an in¬ 
cendiary, against whom we should guard more 
than any one else, in a parliamentary point of 
view. 1 will quote General Jackson’s language. 
He said: “ Over the doors of each Blouse of Con¬ 
gress, in letters of gold, should be inscribed the j 
words, ‘ The Slanderer is wors.e than the Mur- j 


derer. ’ ” A single murder is horrible. It may 
I take a single individual from society. But when 
I look at the mischievous influence of slander, I 
find that it pervades a whole community; makes 
war in society; sets family against family; indi¬ 
vidual against individual; section against section. 
It is the most cowardly mode in which a war 
can be conducted. 

With the state of opinion to which 1 have al¬ 
luded prevailing, what did Mr. Brooks do? Of 
course he did not undertake to challenge Mr. 
Sumner to a fist fight, or a stick fight, or any other 
kind of fight. He thought Mr. Sumner deserved 
a castigation, and he undertook to give it to him 
according to the old-fashioned notion, by caning 
I him. I have not heard Mr. Brooks detail the 
circumstances. I have not conversed with him 
in regard to the matter; I take my information 
from the published testimony. Mr. Brooks, not 
finding him anywhere else, came to him while 
he was sitting in his seat here, after the Senate 
had adjourned. He came to him in front—differ¬ 
ent from the statement made to the Massachusetts 
Legislature. Fie was half a minute in his proem 
or explanation. He said: “ Mr. Sumner, I have 
read your speech. I have read it carefully, with 
as much consideration, and forbearance, and fair¬ 
ness as I could; but, sir, I have come to punish 
you now for the contents of that speech, which 
is a libel on my State, and on a gray-haired rel¬ 
ative.” 

Instinct would have prompted most men to 
rise immediately. Mr. Sumner did rise. In 
j the act of rising, Mr. Brooks struck him across 
the face—not, as has been represented, aver his 
head, for that is not the truth, nor is it borne out 
by the testimony. On the second stroke the cane 
broke. It is the misfortune of Mr. Brooks to 
; have incurred all the epithets which have been 
used in regard to an assassin-like and bludgeon 
j attack, by the mere accident of having a foolish 
stick* which broke. It broke again; and it was 
not, as I understand, until it came very near the 
handle, that he inflicted blows which he would 
not have inflicted if he had an ordinary weapon 
of a kind which would have been a security 
against breaking. His design was to whip him, 

| but the stick broke, and that has brought upon 
| him these imputations. 

| It has gone through the country that Mr. 
j Brooks struck him after he was prostrate on the 
floor. None who know this young man could 
entertain such an idea. I have known him from 
! childhood. I used to have some control over him ; 
but the scholar has become the master, and I sup¬ 
pose he would not care much about my advice 
now. By an hereditary tie our families are more 
closely united than any two with whom I have 
been acquainted. But that is far apart from the 
question. Independent of his filial feelings for 
me, and his regard for me as his constituent and 
Senator, I have no doubt that a personal feeling 
of regard for myself individually influenced him. 

He approached that man with no*other purpose 
than to disgrace him as far as he could; but tins 
stick broke. After it broke he was reduced 
; to a kind of necessity—a contingency not appre¬ 
hended at all in the original inception of the" pur¬ 
pose of making the assault. Notwithstanding 
all that has been said of his brutality, he is ona 
, of the best tempered, fellows I ever knew —impetu- 













9 


cus, no doubt, and quick in resentment, but lie 
did not intend what has been assigned to him. 

After all that has been said and done, on a post 
helium examination, what is it? A fight in the 
Senate Chamber, resulting in two flesh wounds, 
which ought not to have detained him from the 
Senate. Being rather a handsome man, perhaps 
he would not like to expose himself by making 
his appearance for some time; but if he had been 
in the Army, there was no reason why he should 
not go to the field the next day; and he would 
deserve to be cashiered if he did not go. What 
does his physician say ? He says that there were 
but two flesh wounds; that he never had a fever 
while under his care and attendance, and that he 
was ready to come into the Senate the next day, 
but for his advice; and his advice was, that he 
should not come into the Senate, because it would 
aggravate the excitement already too high. He 
did not recommend him not to go into the com¬ 
mittee room to be examined on the ground that 
his wounds had enfeebled him, but for other con¬ 
siderations, because it might aggravate the excite¬ 
ment already prevailing to an extent which might 
lead to mischievous consequences. 

This, then, is the mode of redress to which 
Air. Brooks resorted. I do not say what I should 
have advised him to do, but perhaps it was for¬ 
tunate that I was absent in one respect, for I 
certainly should not have submitted to that in¬ 
sult. Possibly it might not have been offered if 
1 were present, though I do not know the fact, 
because I cannot say exactly what would be the 
course of one of those persons who have a way 
of fabricating speeches. Perhaps, being in his 
speech, he would have had to read it; but I think 
it possible that on the appeal which I would have 
made on my discretion, his friends might have 
induced him to reform it in some way so as to 
conform at least to the requirements of common 
decency in public opinion. If he had not done 
so, I do not know what would have been my 
course. 

For this transaction, as I have detailed it, and 
without the intelligence which I have detailed 
being before them, the Legislature of Alassachu- 
setts have sent their resolutions here. These 
resolutions are without a precedent in the history 
of this country. I hope other Senators will speak 
to them, for they are not only an insult to South 
Carolina and her representatives in Congress, but 
I think they as&ail the Constitution of the country. 
Before commenting on them, I may be permitted 
to allude to the first precedent of a congressional 
fight, which was between two members from 
New England. *■ 

This affair is said to be an evidence of southern 
violence and southern ruffianism. Some papers 
speak of the bowie-knife and the revolver of 
southern blackguards. Why, sir, the first fight 
which took place in Congress was between Alat- 
thew Lyon and Roger Griswold, from Connec¬ 
ticut. Our ancestors in those days looked upon a 
fight with very little of the importance which is 
now attached to it. They said it was so unim¬ 
portant, that they were vexed that so much of the 
time of the House was occupied in considering it. 

It seems that Matthew Lyon, originally an 
officer in the Army, had been cashiered and 
awarded a wooden sword. He then lived in Con¬ 
necticut. At that time, and at this, too, in Con- 
* 


necticut, there was a pretty pressing opinion 
against a low man, and he could not stand it. He 
had to move over into Vermont,a new State, then 
the frontier of the country. lie was elected a 
member of Congress from Vermont. He was 
one of the Democrats. I suppose he was one o! 
the Red Republicans of that day against John 
Adams’s administration. Was he a Democrat ? 

Air. FOOT. Yes, sir; he was a Democrat. 

Air. BUTLER. It was before the gentleman 
from Vermont taught school there, and Lyon as¬ 
sumed to be a kind of apostle of liberty and De¬ 
mocracy. Not satisfied with instructing the 
people of Vermont, he went to Air. Griswold of 
Connecticut; stood behind his seat and told him, 
“ Sir, you do not represent Connecticut correctly: 

I know these people; they are mean people; they 
will take $1,000 as soon as $9,000 for a salary.’ 1 
Griswold stood it for a great while. Finally 
Lyon said, “ I will go over to Connecticut; I 
will talk to these people, and I will have an in¬ 
fluence upon them; I will show whether you 
ought to occupy your scat or not.” Griswold 
said, “ I hope you will not go with your wooden 
sword.” He repeated this twice; and after some¬ 
body suggested to Lyon that the third time was 
too much, he spit in Griswold’s face. A great 
hubbub was raised, and Lyon was brought up, 1 
suppose, to his perfect delight, to be tried as to 
whether he should be expelled from the House 
of Representatives or not. On the followjng day, 
Griswold involved himself in a difficulty without 
any consideration. He took a good hickory 
stick and went to Lyon. lie did not give him 
any notice at all. They fought with hickory 
sticks, and spit-boxes, and tongs, all over the 
House of Representatives, while the House was 
in session. Our hardy ancestors at that time did 
not think a fight of so much importance that they 
should take it into serious consideration. They 
said, let them both go. They refused to expel 
either of them. 

When Air. Randolph struck Mr. Allstine, the 
matter was brought before the House; but none 
of these things were’ considered of a sufficient 
magnitude to invoke the high function of a Legis¬ 
lature sending its missive to Congress to tell them 
what to do. Massachusetts is the first to set the 
example. She has not only administered a rep¬ 
rimand to Air. Brooks without any evidence; she 
has not only assumed to pronounce judgment 
before hearing the evidence, like a judge passing 
sentence on a criminal before hearing his defense; 
but she has undertaken indiscriminately to say, 
that she demands of the Congress of the United 
States to carry out her behests in regard to what 
she considers to be an outrage upon the priv¬ 
ileges of the Senate. 

Can anything be more insulting to the Con¬ 
gress of the United States than the spectacle of 
a State sending down a message to its “faithful 
Commons”—a message that they are to pro¬ 
nounce this or that judgment? Are we to submit 
to this? I did not wish to make the contest; but, 
in my opinion, these resolutions, in the terms 
they import, ought not to have been received by 
the Senate. 

Taking all these things into consideration, in¬ 
dicted as Air. Brooks has been by an ex parte 
accusation, without evidence, without even the 
finding of a grand jury, what is his position ? If 


















10 


lis case could go before any impartial tribunal, 
md I could employ counsel such as I would se- 
ect, probably I would choose my friend from 
California, [Mr. Weller,] who lives in a free 
5tate, who is an impartial man, an advocate, a 
gentleman, a man of honor and courage. 

If a civil action were brought by Mr. Sumner 
igainst Mr. Brooks for assault and battery, I 
dedge myself that, with all the resources he could 
wing to his command, he would be able to reduce 
he verdict to a penny damages. What would be 
lie state of the pleadings? Mr. Brooks struck 
VIr. Sumner, would be the allegation. It would 
>e admitted that he struck him, and inflicted two 
lesh wounds. Mr. Sumner would reply, “ I am 
i Senator of the United States; and although the 
senate was not in session, I was in that sacred 
emple, and my character is so sacred under the 
irivileges of the Senate, that I am not to be 
issailed.” What would Mr. Brooks’s counsel 
•ejoin? The rejoinder would be, “ Sir, you had 
irofailed and disgraced the seat you occupied, 
lefore you were struck.” 

Then the question would be, what is this priv- 
lege so much spoken of—freedom of debate ? 
The court would examine the question, whether 
vhat was said was privileged within the rules of 
he Senate, or whether it was a libel. If it should 
ie pronounced to be a libel, and I were the judge 
lefore whom an action were brought—if a man 
irought /before me could show that another in- 
:ulted his mother, or his father, or his sister, or 
limself, or his country, I would say to the man 
vho inflicted the blow, “ My duty is to fine you; 
mu are not justified by the law; but it is my 
irivilege to say that, whilst I will enforce the law 
md maintain its dignity, I shall fine you as small 
i sum as I possibly can within my discretion.” 

Now let me state the testimony in such an 
ction. It would be that, in the absence of the 
Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Sumner rose 
n his seat, and pronounced what northern papers 
hemselves say is an unparalleled insult, not only 
o the State of South Carolina, but to her absent 
senator. It is one for which I cannot account, 
ought to thank one of the Boston editors—I 
hink the editor of the Courier—for a beautiful, 
lerhaps an undeserved compliment, which he has 
laid to my speech. I ought to thank him here 
lublicly, as one who has independence enough 
o express his opinions in opposition to the tide 
irevailing in his part of the country. In my 
.bsence, language was used of me which, I ven- 
ure to say, no one who knew me believed. I 
night put that question to the Senator’s colleague. 

know nothing against either of the Senators 
rom Massachusetts personally or privately. 1 
lare say, as neighbors and individuals, I should 
lot have the least right to complain of their judg¬ 
ment outside of the influences which operate 
ipon them publicly and politically. They have 
10 right here to attack any man’s private char- 
.cter. 1 never transgressed the limits of propri- 
ty to reach over and look at any man’s private 
haracter. I do not know that I have anything 
gainst Mr. Sumner’s private character; but that 
ias nothing to do with the matter. Here, in his 
flace, in colore officii, as a Senator from Massa- 
husetts, he undertook to traduce and calumniate 
he revolutionary history of South Carolina, and 
o make remarks in regard to one of her Senators 


on this floor, a coequal with him, to which no 
one could have submitted. It happens that that 
Senator was the constituent of a member of the 
House of Representatives, who was his friend. 
That friend, finding that his own blood was in¬ 
sulted by an insult to his absent relative, was 
goaded on by the necessity of circumstances to 
take some measure of revenge. As I said yester¬ 
day, surely under such circumstances much is to 
be pardoned to the feelings of a man acting under 
such motives. 

With these remarks I dismiss the resolutions 
of Massachusetts, hoping that somebody else 
besides a Senator from South Carolina will say 
something of them,for I do not wish to identify 
myself too much with them as a personal matter. 
I have attempted to keep aloof from that. 

The Senator from Massachusetts, in his speech, 
made one or two allusions which I must inci¬ 
dentally notice to show how erroneous he is 
whenever he touches any subject. He says I 
indulged in licentious abuse of the people of Kan¬ 
sas. When he speaks of the people of Kansas 
I suppose he means those who were sent there 
by the aid societies. I oresume he considers 
nobody as the people of Kansas except those 
who have the impression upon them of the people 
whom he designates to choose and comprehend 
within the term, “ people of Kansas.” He has 
no regard for the people of Kentucky, of Mis¬ 
souri, of Iowa, of Virginia, of South Carolina, 
who may have gone into that Territory, but he 
says I have abused its people. I never did abuse 
them. I did say that the man who came here 
with the so-called petition of Kansas in his hands 
without signatures, was attempting to come into 
the fold of this Federal Government by a fraud. 
I did not use as strong an expression as my friend 
from Louisiana, [Mr. Benjamin,] my friend from 
Virginia, [Mr. Mason,] and others. I did not 
say that the petition was a forgery. I denounced 
it as a violation of the rules of the Senate to print 
a paper of that kind, or to give it the dignity 
of a paper coming from a State. This is all that 
I said. I did not abuse the people. But what 
does Mr. Sumner say of the portion, my portion, 
if he chooses to call them so, though I do not 
wish so to characterize them, of the people of 
Kansas? He speaks of them as “ hirelings, picked 
from the drunken spew and vomit of an uneasy 
civilization—in the form of men— 

“ ‘ Ay, in the catalogue ye go for men ; 

As hounds and grayhounds, mongrels, spaniels, curs, 
Shoughs, water-rugs, and demi-wolves, are called 
All by the name of dogs. 5 55 

Sir, he could not have provoked me in the spi¬ 
rit of controversy to say that. I have no doubt 
many worthy individuals have gone there under 
the influence of aid societies; I have not com¬ 
pared them, as the Senator has those who have 
gone there from Arkansas, Missouri, and Vir¬ 
ginia, to the genus of wolves, dogs, and hirelings 
from the spew of an uneasy civilization. All are 
dogs, in his estimation, that do not come under 
the impression of his indorsement. This is lan¬ 
guage which I could not use of any set of men with 
whom I was not acquainted. If I were to settl. 
in Kansas to-morrow among those very people, I 
think it probable that I should be on good term, 
with them; for I have never had a dispute with a 
neighbor. I do not think these people would 












11 


disturb me. But what think you of this denun¬ 
ciation—this rhetorical bombardment from the 
Senate of the United States, of a class of indi¬ 
viduals, as honorable and brave a set of men, I 
doubt not, as any other, though, perhaps, reck¬ 
less to some extent. 1 regret the issue pending 
in Kansas. I said before, and now repeat, that 
the very last fate to which this country should 
be reduced, would be to commit the arbitrament 
of great questions to the issue of the sword in 
the hands of youth willing to contend and pleased 
with the pride of engaging in arms, and having 
bestowed on them all the fascination which can 
be imparted by danger and trial. 

Mr. Butler then goes on to show Mr. Sumner 
guilt y of what bears a very close similitude to an 
mlenlional misunderstanding in charging him (Mr. 
Butler) with saying that the people of Kansas 
should be disarmed; and also shows up Mr. 
Sumner’s — now notorious — imitation of the 
apostrophe of Demosthenes, which he admits is 
a remarkable imitation, and is the best part of 
his (Mr. Sumner’s) speech. He closes with the 
following scathing peroration: 

Mr. President, I have convicted the Senator of 
making a speech which was not in response to 
anything 1 said. I have convicted him of such 
historical errors as no man can mistake. I have 
convicted him of making allegations against me 
of being ignorant of law and of Constitutions, and 
yet when he undertook to quote and expound the 
constitution of South Carolina, I have shown that 
he either never read that constitution, or he could 
not understand it, or, if he did understand it, he 
willfully misrepresented it. Pie has been guilty 
of the sxippressio veri and the suggestio falsi. He 
cannot escape from these propositions. 

I have a copy of the Senator’s speech before 
me, and now 1 am going to turn his gun upon 
him. I ask the Senate to see if I do not turn it 
upon him to such an extent as to allow me to 
apply the apposite quotation of which I have 
often made use: 

“Mutato nomine, de te 
Fubuia narratur.” 

Here is*what he says of me: 

“ With regret I come again upon the Senator from South 
Carolina, [Mr. Butler,] who, omnipresent in this debate” 

Why, sir, I have counted the Congressional 
Globe, and my remarks make but twelve pages, 
while his are thirty-two. I have not gone into 
the subject at as great length as my friends from 
Alabama, [Mr. Clay,] Georgia, [Mr. Toombs,] 
and others. My speeches all put together on 
this subject are but twelve pages, and his are thir¬ 
ty-two; while those of his coadjutors amount, I 
suppose, to a hundred more. Yet he said I was 
omnipresent in this debate ! I will not say that 
he is omnipresent in this debate, but he is omni¬ 
present everywhere out of the debate. He says 
that I “ overflowed with rage at the simple sug¬ 
gestion that Kansas had applied for admission as 
a State, and, with incoherent phrases, discharged 
the loose expectoration of his speech, now upon 
her representatives, and then upon her people.” 
I said it was a fraud, and the Senate said so. 
Why uid lie single me out? Again, alluding to 
me, he said: 


“ There was no extravagance of the ancient parliament 
ary debate which he did not repeat; nor was there any pos 
sible deviation from truth which he did not make, with s' 
much of passion, I am glad to add, as to save him from ttv 
suspicion of intentional aberration.” 

I do not know that I have ever ».een an imita 
tor in my life. Those who know me best sat 
that I am rather sui generis. I never borrow fron 
Demosthenes, and palm it off as my own. As fo 
my deviation from the truth, let me ask, did In 
tell the truth when he quoted the constitution oi 
South Carolina, and there was no such clause ii 
it as he stated? Did he tell the truth when lr 
undertook to say, that her imbecility was shame 
ful during the Revolution? 1 have shown tha 
she absolutely sent bread to Massachusetts. Dit 
he tell the truth when he meant to impute to m 
what he has charged here? 1 retort upon liln 
everything that follows. 

I retort on him the very language which h 
applies to me. He accused me of such a pro 
clivity to error that I could not conform to ill 
line of truth, or was continually deviating fron 
it. I have convicted him before the Senate, b] 
the evidence which I have adduced, of calunr 
mating the history and.character of South Caro 
lina, and of misrepresenting her constitution 
He has done this, not in response to anything 
I had said, or anytlnng which was legilimatelj 
connected with the debate. He has undertaker 
to charge me with ignorance of the law and tin 
Constitution, which is perfectly independent o 
his arbitrary dictupi —the dictum, allow me to say 
of a man who has never conducted a great lav 
case in this country. I believe no one would bu] 
an estate worth $10,000 upon his opinion of tin 
title. I would not engage him to conduct a cause 
not that he is not a clear man, but 1 would no 
trust him as a lawyer. And yet he undertakes U 
be my judge. What right has he to pronounc< 
judgment on me as a lawyer? I am reduced to t 
pretty predicament at this time of life, if l am U 
be subjected to such a judgment! It is a judg 
ment about which I care little; and 1 do not sup 
pose any man would give fifty dollars for it ever 
in Massachusetts. 

“ He cannot ope liis mouth butout there fliesa blunder.” 

I sincerely hope that what he has said is s 
blunder. 1 do not know but that he may hav< 
thought he would escape scrutiny and exposure 
I hope that, when he opened his mouth and sail 
what he did in reference to these matters, it was 
a blunder. He said of me, “ the Senator toucher 
nothing which he does not disfigure.” 1 can say 
of him he has touched nothing which he lias no 
misrepresented, except it be in his general dechv 
mation, and there is no detecting a man in that; ii 
is a matter of taste. I appreciate highly the com 
pliment I received this morning in the Bostor 
Courier as to~ the merit of my speech. The 
Senator says of me, that “the Senator touches 
nothing which he does not disfigure—with erroi 
sometimes of principle, sometimes of fact.” 1 
apply this to him with this exception: I say erroi 
nearly always of principle, sometimes of fact. ] 
leave the Senate to decide between us in that re¬ 
spect. Again he said of me: 

“ lie shows an incapacity of accuracy, whether in staling 
the Constitution or in stating the law—whether in the de¬ 
tails of statistics or the diversions of scholarship.” 

I shall not compete with him in scholarship, 









12 


for I should be vulnerable there; but “ men who 
live in glass houses should never throw stones.” 
iOf all the things which that Senator ventured to 
do, I think he exposed his house most when he 
made that assertion, with the detection which I 
have fixed upon him of error, injustice, and ma¬ 
lignity. It is nailed upon him, and he cannot 
get rid of it. I care not how far fanaticism may 
lundertake to influence the judgment of public 
opinion, it cannot alter the truth. Truth is 
sometimes slow in making its impression on the 
public mind, but, when made, it isevidence which 

E reduces a belief that cannot be resisted. That 
elief will grow out of my statements, my re¬ 
marks, and my references, and is just as certain 
as the truth of the evidence, and he cannotescape 
from it. 

Mr. President, I have detained the Senate much 
longer than I wished. When I gave notice that 
l should speak to the resolutions of Massachu¬ 
setts, it was with perfect confidence that the Sen¬ 
ator would be in his seat. Finding that these 
resolutions were not here, on Monday last I gave 
notice that! should speak on Thursday, still con¬ 
fident that he would be here? Yesterday, having 
heard that perhaps he would not be present, I 
iinquired in as delicate a manner as I could when 
he would be here ? Although our relations are not 
friendly, I did not wish to assume a position 
which would be even apparently inconsistent 
with fair chivalry and bearing. I inquired 
whether he would be in the Senate within a fort¬ 
night, and, if so, I said I would postpone my re¬ 
marks. Finding that it was his purpose to go, 
in a few days, to Massachusetts, and that he 
would not be likely to return for three or four 
weeks, I could not allow the opportunity to pass. 
I have stated these facts to show that I do not 
island here taking advantage of his absence. I was 
willing to wait any reasonable time, but I could 
not allow error to prevail longer in relation to 
my State, my friend, or myself. This is my 
position. 

Sir, if there is any one individual who more 
than another regrets the occasion on which I 
have spoken, it is myself. I have no temper for 


i 


I strife. I am passing through the last chapter of 
my public life, and 1 have no wish to identify my 
name with anything like a personal controversy, 
j I have never soughtit. When the question comes 
to be examined and solved, Who was the aggress¬ 
or? it will be found that it was not 1 on any 
occasion. I admit that I have three p-eculiaritios 
of manner—impatience, excitability, and perhaps 
absent-mindedness. They are peculiarities which 
have followed me from the cradle. But, sir, I 
hope I have never known the time when reason 
and repentance would not suppress even a tem¬ 
porary injustice. If injustice is done to me, or 
a wrong or insult offered, I never stop to parley 
in words. I ask justice, and if it is not given, 

1 never would be in the wrong if I could help 
myself; but when I am in the right I do not think 
any man can blame me for vindicating my princi¬ 
ples. 

Now, sir,. I appeal to the good sense of this 
country. 1 appeal to the lessons which its grave 
history inculcates. I appeal to the position which 
it occupies in relation to the history of the world, 
and to the high responsibilities which now rest 
on this Confederacy, not to allow itto be dissolved 
in blood. If we are to separate, let us have com¬ 
mon sense enough to do it in a way becoming in¬ 
telligent men, who have learned their lessons from 
the highest sources of intelligence and wisdom. 
If we are to live together, let it not be upon the 
terms prescribed or intimated by the tone and 
temper of the licentious and aggressive language 
of the speech delivered by the Senator from Mas¬ 
sachusetts. It is impossible for self-respect to 
allow me to sit here and listen quietly to such a 
speech. If there were separate confederacies 
to-morrow, he dare not utter it without subjecting 
himself to a peril which he will not encounter 
now. He would then put his section in a posi¬ 
tion to make war, and he would be responsible to a 
higher tribunal than that of those who have erected 
themselves into it under an influence which l 
think must perish; and I hope the day is fast 
coming when the fires of that limited sectionalism 
will burn out, or will be reduced to the ashes of 
disappointment and disgrace. 


i 

i 

i 



i 











FROM THE 


HON. JOSIAH J. EVANS'S SPEECH, 

DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF TIIE UNITED STATES, JUNE 23, 1856. 


The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, having under 

consideration the bill to enable the people of the Terri- 

• tory of Kansas to form a constitution and State govern¬ 
ment, preparatory to their admission into the Union when 

• they have the requisite population— 

Mr. EVANS said: Air. President, the subjects 
which have grown out of this unhappy Kansas 
affair are of very grave import. I would willingly, 
very willingly, avoid, if it were possible, mingling 
in this controversy. I have no taste for it. It is 
against the habits of the last thirty years of my 
life; for within that period, so far as I remember, 
I have on no occasion found it necessary to make 
anything like a forensic elfort. But, sir, the 
Senator from Alassachusetts not now in his seat 
[Air. Sumner] has not left me any choice. He 
has thought proper, in a most ruthless manner, 
to assail my State, and to assail my colleague. 
This requires at my hands something in reply. 
In making this reply, I do not purpose to indulge 
in any unkind language, much less to violate any 
parliamentary law. 

The subjects which I propose to discuss are the 
legitimate inferences growing out of that which 
he has introduced into his speech. So far as I 
am capable of understanding it—and I certainly 
have no desire to misrepresent either that Sena¬ 
tor or anybody else—the great object of the Sen¬ 
ator’s speech seemed to be threefold: First, to 
excite the people, the Free-Soil people—the “free 
people,” as he called them—in Kansas, to rebel¬ 
lion and resistance to the law. That seemed to 
be his first object. His second object was, to 
assail and vituperate my respected friend and 
colleague, [Mr. Butler;] to heap all the oppro¬ 
brium he could on the slave States generally, 
and the State of South Carolina in particular. 
To this, sir, was added the further object of mag¬ 
nifying, as far as in him lay, the present condi¬ 
tion, and former, and particularly the revolu¬ 
tionary, services of the State of Alassachusetts. 
Now, sir, upon each of these subjects I have 
something to say—very little, indeed, in relation 
to Kansas. Sir, my heart bleeds at the unhappy 
condition of that country. The efforts which 
have been made, from the time of the passage of 
the Kansas bill, to defeat its operation by means 
which I believe originated in this Hall, have been 
incessant and without any remission. Air. Pres¬ 
ident, I am an old man; and for the last thirty 
years of my life, the business of it has been to 
endeavor to arrive dispassionately at just conclu¬ 
sions. I am too old to be excited by party con¬ 
flicts. I have therefore endeavored to turn my 
attention to this subject as dispassionately as I 
could; and the deliberate judgment to which I 
have come is, that if the people of Kansas—the 
pro slavery and anti-slavery party-had been suf¬ 


fered to act for themselves, the unhappy condi¬ 
tion in which that country is now placed would 
never have existed. But, sir, the politicians— 
those who live by excitement—would not let this 
matter rest. I have no doubt you will remember, 
sir, that before the Kansas bill was passed, hun¬ 
dreds of thousands of pamphlets were distributed 
through this land, for the purpose of exciting the 
public prejudice against it. It was branded as a 
fraud, as a swindle, as a breach of faith on the 
art of the South. Those pamphlets were echoed 
ack by the remonstrances of three thousand 
New England clergymen, and laymen without 
number. 

Air. President, I beg to ask what was this 
plighted faith which it is charged that the South 
violated in the Kansas bill ? What was it? It 
was simply the repeal of the Alissouri restriction 
—I do not call it compromise, because it partakes 
of nothing of the nature of a compact or compro¬ 
mise. Well, sir, what was that Alissouri restric¬ 
tion? I do not propose to enter into a discussion 
of it. I desire simply to say that it was an act of 
Congress. When Alissouri came here requiring 
admission as a State, objection was made that she 
was a slave State. Alissouri had a right, I pre¬ 
sume, to decide this matter for herself. She was 
settled mainly from Virginia and other slavehold¬ 
ing States. Slavery existed there extensively, 
and had existed there before the purchase of 
Louisiana, of which it was a part. Well, sir, for 
the sake of peace, after there had been much 
discussion on the subject, the South, headed by- 
Mr. Lowndes, agreed that Alissouri should be ad¬ 
mitted, and that after that time no slavery should 
exist beyond a certain line. As I said before, 
this was a mere act of Congress. The North 
gave nothing for it. They had no right to object 
to the admission of Alissouri as a slaveholding 
State. It was usurpation in them to pretend that 
they had a right to exclude her. If, then, the 
North had no right to object, shogave nothing 
for this plighted faith of the South, as it is called. 
It was simply an act of Congress, subject to repeal 
whenever Congress thought proper to repeal it. 

If, sir, there was any inducement on the part 
of the South to assent to this Missouri restriction, 
it was the belief, which they had a right to ex¬ 
pect, that the slavery agitation should cease. 
They had surrendered a portion of their territory, 
that to which they had as good a title as any 
other portion of this Union, and they had a right 
to expect that the slavery agitation would cease. 
If anybody has a right to complain of this breach 
of faith, it is the South. The slavery agitation 
has been continued from 1820 up to this time; 
there has been no remission in it. If it has par¬ 
tially died out on some occasions, the first oppor- 





14 


tunity which presented itself has been seized to 
revive it with still greater virulence. 

Mr. President, 1 do not propose to go further 
on this subject. It has been so often discussed 
that it would be an unnecessary waste of the 
time of the Senate for me to attempt to discuss it 
again; but this agitation seems to have arisen out 
of the question of slavery; and on that I have 
something to say, though but very little. Sir, j 
the South—the slave States—are not propagand¬ 
ists; they are content with their institutions as 
they are; they arc content with that form of civ¬ 
ilization which exists amongst them; they desire 
not to extend it to New England or to any other 
portion of the United States, who do not choose 
to receive it. But, sir, whilst they arc willing to 
do this, there is nothing in their nature, and there 
is nothing in their institutions, which inclines 
them to submit tamely to any aggressions on their 
rights. If slavery be a sin, it is ours, and we . 
are willing to bear it. Neither New England nor 
any other section of the country comes in for any | 
participation of it. If, as has been said, it is an 
incubus on the advance of civilization—if it is an 
incubus on the energies of any people—that in¬ 
cubus rests on our people, and does not paralyze 
any other section. If we are willing to bear it, why 
should others desire to relieve us of that of which 
we do not complain? 

But it is said, “You are not content to keep 
your institutions in your own section, but you 
desire to extend them to Kansas.” Well, sir, 
if we desire to extend them to Kansas, have we 
not a right to do so ? Does not Kansas belong 
in part to the Louisiana purchase ? Did we not 
pay equally—I do not say we paid more—but we 
paid our full share of the price of that country. 
If gentlemen wish to know why we particularly 
desire to have Kansas, I can tell them. If the sla¬ 
very agitation had ceased, and if, after the Mis¬ 
souri compromise, those who live in the free 
States would have been content to allow things 
to remain as they were, there would never have 
been any movement to change that understanding 
between the two sections of the country. But, 
sir, no sooner had they succeeded in placing the 
Missouri restriction on our settlement of that 
northwestern country, than both Houses of Con¬ 
gress were flooded with petitions to abolish sla¬ 
very in the District of Columbia, to abolish what 
was called the slave trade between the States, and, 
more than that, to abolish it in the forts and gar¬ 
risons and every other place over which Congress 
had any jurisdiction. Did I not hear the Sen¬ 
ator from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson] say, that 
it was the intention of his party to abolish sla¬ 
very in the Territories, in the District of Colum¬ 
bia, and everywhere elsewhere they had power? 
If they will abolish it wherever they have the 
power, they will get the power whenever they can. 
The same spirit which would exercise the power 
will get, the power whenever it can. Let any man 
cast his eye on the map of this immense domain, 
extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean, 
and he will see a space there, outside of the ex¬ 
isting States, abundantly large to make States 
enough to give the gentlemen what they desire. 
Whenever you have sixty States in this Union, 
three fourths of them can alter the Constitution, 
and abolish slavery everywhere. You have 
thirty-one now; you want only twenty-nine. 


j Where are they to come from ? Kansas and Ne¬ 
braska can make six; New Mexico will make 
j half as many; California may be well divided into 
three States; and there is no doubt of the fact, 1 
venture to say, that within the next forty or fifty 
years it will be accomplished—that the Indians 
will be driven out, and those large territories, ex¬ 
tending from the Atlantic to the Pacific, will be 
divided into States of this Union. Was it strange, 
then, that the South should be alarmed at this 
state of things? I did not hear it; but I have un¬ 
derstood that, in 1850, a Senator here from one of 
tire free States said their object was to build a 
wall around slavery—a wall of freemen, to render 
slave property unproductive, and to force its 
emancipation. 

Mr. BUTLER. “ Cordon,” was the word. 

Mr. EVANS. Well, sir, Kansas, although it 
is but one State when added, will be good against 
three more. And was it strange, then, that the 
South should desire possession of Kansas merely 
as a guarantee? There is no pretense that they 
can occupy any other portion of that immense 
region. Everybody knows that slavery will not 
do fora farming country merely. It is of no value 
in a graining country; it is of no value in the 
mechanic arts; it can only be used to advantage 
in the cultivation of the great staples. There is 
no pretense that anyone of the great staples that 
constitute the great material of our foreign com¬ 
merce, can be cultivated anywhere within the 
limits of these Territories outside of the Territory 
of Kansas. I ought, Mr. President, to say, in 
this connection, that, although I have expressed 
our fears as to the future, yet, with such gentle¬ 
men as I see around me from the free States, I 
have nothing to fear. I know that the honorable 
Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Foster] would 
do no such act of foul injustice as to interfere 
with slavery in the States. And if the question 
was to-morrow, whether the Constitution should 
be altered, and this great and crying wrong per¬ 
petrated, he would not do it; and I can say the 
same of many others whom I see here to-day; 
but can I forget, or can anybody forget, what is 
the progress of this thing? Why, sir, was not 
Daniel Webster refused the use of Faneuil Hall 
because it was supposed he had expressed some 
degree of toleration for the institution of slavery? 
Whatguarantee have I—what guarantee can any¬ 
body have, that, in twenty or thirty years from 
this time, those who are here now will not be 
elbowed out as they have been in some of the 
States by some more illiberal persons than them¬ 
selves ? 

These, Mr. President, are the reasons why we 
desire Kansas; but it was not allowed. The very 
instant it was opened to the slave population, that 
instant there sprung up a contrivance—a machin¬ 
ery was set in operation of which I do not choose 
to speak—the object of which was to defeat this 
act of Congress, and, as was said by the Senator 
from Massachusetts, to devote this Territory to 
freedom. Well, sir, if they can devote i(, to free 
population in the ordinary way, without the use 
of this new scheme of immigration of which lie 
spake—and which I suppose is that which has 
been in operation—if they can get possession of 
it without resort to this new scheme of immigra¬ 
tion, we cannot object; I, for one, would not 
object. 



















15 


Mr. President, I now propose to submit some 
remarks on this hated subject of slavery. Sir, I 
am not frightened by a name. A wise legislator 
looks to things as they are; and he who would 
legislate for this great Republic must look to it 
as it is. A state of things exist here which, per¬ 
haps, exists nowhere else; but it is here, and you 
must deal with it as a wise and honest man should. 

I do not mean in any remarks which I shall make 
to reproach Massachusetts, or any other State 
or section of the world, on the subject of the slave 
trade. It is true that, at least so far as South 
Carolina is concerned, we participated very little 
in it. Some few ships were fitted out in Charles¬ 
ton, but I doubt if a native of the State ever had 
any participation in it. But, sir, I reproach no¬ 
body for it. At that period in the history of the 
world, it was thought right. There was the con¬ 
current testimony of the civilized world that, to 
capture the wild savage of Africa, and reduce him 
to a state of subjection, to feed and clothe him, and 
civilize him, and Christianize him was no wrong ? 

I say, therefore, that I reproach no man for it. 
We followed only the popular sentiment which 
prevailed in the world. But, sir, I think we have 
a right to complain, and it is the only complaint 
on this subject I have to make, that, if others have 
gone before us, if we have been outstripped in 
finding out that this system was wrong, those 
persons who have been thus fortunate will let us 
alone until we ourselves become sufficiently en¬ 
lightened to concur in their opinion. This, we 
think, we have the right to ask; this is all we do 
ask. 

I propose to enter into no ethnological inquiry 
about the unity of the races. My own opinion, 
my own judgment is, that we are all one—proba¬ 
bly descended from a common ancestor; but that 
is very immaterial. We find men different on 
the face of the earth—as different as they would 
be if they were not descended from a common 
ancestor ; but in relation to the African, no man 
in this House, and no man out of it, can say that 
there is any corner of this earth, upon which the 
African race are as well off, as well provided for, 
with more of the elements of happiness, than 
in the slave part of these United States. I assert 
it without the fear of contradiction. I know not 
from whence it has come ; but this I know, that 
the Africans were slaves in the days of the Pha¬ 
raohs ; that nine out of ten of them are slaves in 
their native land; and that in no country of which 
I am aware are they received upon an equality 
with the white race. In confirmation of the fact 
which I have just stated, that nine out of ten of 
them are slaves in their own country, I beg leave 
to refer to an incident in Park’s travels in Africa. 
In the year, 1796, after having visited the interior, 
when he returned to the coast of Senegal, finding | 
no vessel bound for Europe, he took passage in : 
a slaveship, bound for Charleston. In that ship j 
there were one hundred and sixty Africans. Hav¬ 
ing been a year in their country, he understood 
their language, and was able to converse with 
them. He found that, of the whole one hundred 
and sixty, only four had been born free. The 
rest were slaves. If any man desires to know 
what is the state of slavery in Africa, let him read 
Park, and Lander, and the recent book of Cap- J 
kxin Canot. 


Many of the negroes at the South are intelligent, 
although they have not much mental culture— 
certainly very little that is derived from books. 
They are an improving people—improving in in¬ 
telligence and in morals. I have no doubt that 
the time will come when God*will work out his 
own problem in relation to Africa. Carlyle says, I 
think with some truth, that all the great events in 
the history of man have generally been produced 
by a single individual, or by but very few; that 
the great reformation in religion was produced by 
Luther; that Cromwell and his associates in Eng¬ 
land produced a wondrous change in the notions 
of mankind, in relation to civil and religious lib¬ 
erty; that a new impetus was given to this ball by 
the American Revolution, of which Washington 
was the chosen instrument of Providence to ac¬ 
complish. Sir, for aught I know, it may be that, 
in the providence of God, in his own proper time, 
a delivex-ance will be worked out for this race. 
At pi-esent they are not fit for it, but they are 
going on in impx-ovement, both mentally and mor¬ 
ally. Of one thing I am sui’e—when that time 
arrives, some more fit insti-ument will be used 
than those who have now thrust themselves into 
this business, prematurely, and in a manner 
wholly uncalled for. I doubt very much whether 
Pai'son Beecher will be a chosen instrument in the 
hands of God for the pui-pose of effecting this or 
any other great and beneficial change in the affairs 
of mankind. 

Sir, as I said before, I am not frightened by 
names. I am not alarmed by the fear that I shall 
be held up in some future fourth of July speech, 
or some college oration, or in the columns of some 
filthy newspaper, as the advocate of slavery. 
That has no terrors for me. I stand here to legis¬ 
late for this country as it is. If the institution 
of slavery be an evil, to whom is it an evil? Is 
it to the master? What injurious effect does it 
produce upon him ? Is he not as much of a gen¬ 
tleman, is he not as moral a man, is he not as 
pious and religious .a man, is he not as distin¬ 
guished for all the cardinal virtues as the people 
of any country on the face of the earth ? If lie is 
not, I have not found out the fact. 

If it be an evil to the African, whei*e, I ask, is 
his condition better? Is it in Africa? Let Park 
and the travelers in that country answer the 
question. Is his condition better in Hayti or 
Jamaica? Let those who desire con-ect informa¬ 
tion on that point go to some fountain of truth, 
and they will find it. I would l-ecommend every 
man who embarks in this controversy with the 
hope of bettering the condition of the African, to 
read the letter of Governor Wood, of Ohio. On 
his way to his consulate in South America he 
stopped at Jamaica. Let any man read what he 
says, and compai’e it with what he may see at 
the South—not what he has read in Mrs. Stowe’s 
novel—and he will find the truth of what I assert, 
that the condition of the African is better in our 
southern States than in any of those countries 
in which he has been emancipated. 

I ask, further, is his condition better in the 
East? Is a free negro in New England as well 
off as a slave who has a good master? and nine 
out of ten, I believe I might say ninety-nine out of 
a hundred, ai*e good masters. Let the facts speak 
for themselves. Look at the census. Although 



















16 


emancipation has been going on, and fugitives 
have been flying to the free States, the census 
shows that, in the slave States,-the slave popula¬ 
tion lias increased infinitely beyond the increase 
of the free people of color, with all these append¬ 
ages, in the free States. If you go to the records 
of pauperism and poverty, what do you find? 
You find that he is a being infinitely more de¬ 
graded than the white man. In 1850, in the State 
of Massachusetts, with a population of over 
900,000 white inhabitants, there were 389 con¬ 
victs in her penitentiaries, and 47 black convicts 
out of a negro population of 9,000. In Connecti¬ 
cut, there were 146 white and 30 black convicts 
in her penitentiary. In New York, you find the 
same disproportion. 

The result is, that in Massachusetts there is 1 
white convict out of every 2,522 whites, and 1 j 
black convict for every 262 negroes. In New j 
York, there is 1 white convict in 2,056, and 1 
black convict in 142. In Virginia, there is 1 white j 
convict in 5,570, and 1 black convict in 11,600. 

I do not suppose that these figures present ex¬ 
actly a correct statement in relation to Virginia, 
for I suppose the slaves there are not punished in j 
such a way as to exhibit in prison returns the full 
result of crime. I presume they are punished, as 
in South Carolina, in some summary way of 
which no special record is kept; but, so far as 
Massachusetts and New York are concerned, the 
question is settled beyond all controversy. 

The rapid increase of population in the ordi¬ 
nary way is looked upon by all writers as one 
of the strongest evidences of the bodily comfort 
at least, of the subjects of it. Crime and pauper¬ 
ism are the fruits, not of comfort and independ¬ 
ence, but of want and destitution. The fact, that 
in Massachusetts there is 1 white convict out of 
2,522, and 1 black convict out of 262, exhibits a 
state of things, showing beyond all question that 
in those regions of boasted freedom the black 
man is in a sad condition. 

I am sorry, sir, that necessity compels me to 
speak of the absent Senator from Massachu¬ 
setts. I do not intend to use his own language, 
or to be unmindful of what is due to myself, but 
I have to speak of his facts. What could be the 
object of the wondrous tirade which we heard 
from him about freedom ? Does he mean that, 
in the state of things which exists in this coun¬ 
try, he thinks it desirable to turn loose three mil¬ 
lions of Africans? If he does, he means what 
few people besides himself—few considerate peo¬ 
ple—would suppose to be practicable. The Sen¬ 
ator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Wilson,] who is 
present, has defined his position. He disclaims 
any right to interfere with slavery in the States. 
It is a fair inference, as I have already remarked, 
that, though he is now restrained by the Consti- 
tion, he would do it if he had the power; but in 
that I may do him injustice. The other Senator 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner] has never, I 
believe, defined his position on this point. He 
has never said—in fact the contrary is to be in¬ 
ferred-—that the Constitution affords us any guar¬ 
antee. I suppose, then, (to borrow a manufac¬ 
turer’s term,) that he belongs to that stripe of the 
Anti-slavery party who deny that the Constitu¬ 
tion has guarantied slavery, and who contend 
&at Congress has the power to abolish it, and is 


in duty bound to exercise the power as soon as 
it can. This is the doctrine of Garrison, and of 
some papers which are sent to me every day'—- 
among the rest, one called the Radical Abolition¬ 
ist. If such be the Senator’s views, I can only 
say that they are utterly impracticable. I shall 
not waste the time of the Senate in discussing 
such a scheme. If it is to be done on payment 
of the value of the slaves, $1,000,000,000 will 
not pay for them. If they are to be emancipated 
and sent to Africa, that sum will not pay the ex¬ 
pense of their transportation and maintenance 
there until they are able to maintain themselves. 
If the object of that party be to emancipate them, 
and leave them in the States, it requires no sa¬ 
gacity to see what will be the result. 

Sir, between the white man, North and South., 
and the black man, there is a deep, an impassable 
gulf. It is as manifest at the North as at the South. 
In 1847, I traveled through New England and 
New York. I was ten days in Boston and three 
weeks in New York. During all that time I 
never saw a negro at work. It is well known 
there that a white man will not work with him. 
This with some people is the objection to allow¬ 
ing slaves to go to Kansas. They say the white 
man will not work with the negro. If there be 
any man who in his senses believes that tha 
negro’s condition would be bettered by emanci¬ 
pation now, I have never met him, unless ho 
be one of those whom I have seen and heard 
on this floor. I need not say, what is obvious 
to everybody who knows anything about tha 
matter, that his condition would be infinitely 
worse. 

If these declamations about freedom, and these 
commiserations for the poor negro’s condition, 
have any meaning—if they are to result in any- 
suppose they would result in 
to better his condition. Now, will 
his condition be bettered? No man, 1 think, 
will rise here in his place and say that it will. 

But another fruitful subject of declamation— 
the Senator from Massachusetts spoke largely 
about it—is, that we send little children to the 
auction block—that we part husband and wife. 
I can inform him that this act which he thus justly 
denounces is as much dcnunciated in the State 
of South Carolina as in Massachusetts. Sir, I live 
in a slave country; I live in a district in which 
the slave population exceeds the white by two 
thirds; and yet I affirm here, that I have never 
known an instance in which a separation has 
been made between husband and wife, or, as I 
have heard, mother and her children. If gentle¬ 
men will look at the census, they will see that by 
far the greater part of the slaveholders own from 
one to ten slaves. When you come, on the par¬ 
tition of estates, to divide that number between 
families, there must necessarily be some sep¬ 
aration; but as to putting them on the block, 
j and selling them to anybody who may choose 
to buy, I never heard of it; I never knew it; and 
I do not believe the popular sentiment in any 
part of South Carolina would tolerate it for a 
I moment. 

; In this connection I may say that the man 
Legree, who has been held up as the model of 
a slaveholder, is no more a representative of 
! the slaveholders of Soutli Carolina, than a &Xns- 


thing, I should 
something 






















17 


saciiusetts man, by the name of "Knapp, is of 
the morals of Massachusetts. Knapp was the 
nephew of an aged and respectable old gentleman 
who had once been a member of the House of 
Representatives, who was eighty years of age, 
and in the ordinary course of nature could have 
lived but a few years. His nephew was so 

reedy to put his hands on his property that he 

ired an assassin to enter his chamber at mid¬ 
night and murder the old man in his sleep. I 
quote not that as a model of Massachusetts mo¬ 
rality, but it as fairly represents Massachusetts 
morality as this fellow Legree dpes the slave¬ 
holders of the South. 

1 am sorry to say—but it is necessary that I 
should say, that whatever opinion a northern man 
may entertain at home upon the subject of sla¬ 
very, I have never known any qualms of con¬ 
science to disturb him when he came to the 
South, and succeeded to this kind of property, 
either by purchase, inheritance, or marriage. I 
have never known any man who came among us, 
no matter where he came from, who, if he re¬ 
moved into a free State, did not put the value of 
his slaves in his pocket, and go off with a quiet 
and peaceable conscience. I do not blame any¬ 
body for this. If what I have stated of the con¬ 
dition of these people when free be true, he 
would have done them an injustice by eman¬ 
cipating them. If he had carried them to New 
England or New York, the strong probability is 
that the penitentiary would have been their doom. 

It is very easy to be humane at other people’s 
expense. I have known two or three fellows 
who went from South Carolina to free States, 
and turned Abolitionists. 1 knew an exceedingly 
clever young man, as I supposed him to be, who 
removed to Mississippi, and there sold his ne¬ 
groes at $1,000 round. He went to Ohio, and 
the next I heard of him he was figuring there in 
an abolition meeting, very denunciatory of the 
slaveholders. There was another man who went 
from my State, who was a Baptist preacher, who 
had a large number of negroes. He sold them, 
and carried ofif his money; and the next thing 
we heard of him was an entire mailbag full of 
abolition pamphlets, sent by him to his friends in 
South Carolina. But, sir, he had the money for his 
slaves in his pocket, and he never disgorged it. 

There is an extraordinary case connected with 
this subject which it is right that I should state. 
It has some peculiar significance. In the year 
1839, a Mr. Ball, who was a rice planter on Cooper 
river, at the mouth of which the city of Charles¬ 
ton is built, took passage with his wife, who was 
a New England woman, and, as I have always 
understood, an exceedingly clever lady. It was 
the misfortune of this gentleman and his wife, 
that the steamboat in which they took passage, 
the Pulaski, was lost off the coast of North Caro¬ 
lina; she broke in two’on the Ijigh sea; and, with 
the exception of three or four persons, all per¬ 
ished who were on board, and among the rest 
this gentleman and his wife. He left a Targe es¬ 
tate. Who was to get it? Mr. Ball had made a 
will, in which he made a large provision for his 
wife. The question was, did she survive him? 
If she died first, it was a lapsed legacy; if she 
survived hfm but for a moment, the legacy was 
hers, and would go to her heirs. 

The case of which I am speaking is known as 


the case of Pell vs. Ball. Mr. Pell, who I believe 
lived in New York, had married a lady who was 
perhaps the sister of Mrs. Ball, or, at any rate, 
one of the heirs. He and the other heirs of Mrs. 
Ball filed a bill in the court of equity for the pur¬ 
pose of having the benefit of this legacy. The 
chancellor decided, on the evidence of a Miss 
Lamar, of Georgia, a very extraordinary yqung 
woman of unusual fortitude and presence of mind, 
that Mrs. Ball survived, and therefore these claim¬ 
ants, as her heirs-at-law, were entitled to the leg¬ 
acy. That settled the right; and the property, 
consisting of over one hundred slaves, was or¬ 
dered by the chancellor to be sold by the master. 

Another gentleman, who was equally entitled 
with Mr. Pell, attended the sale; and, as 1 learn 
by some papers which I have here—for I was not 
there on the day of sale—among the negroes to 
be sold was a negro man named Frank, with his 
family, consisting of a wife and eight children. 
It is the uniform order and direction of the court 
of equity, that negroes shall be sold in families. 
This negro man had been the favorite body 
servant of Mr. Ball. This other gentleman held 
some conversation with him on the day of sale. 
In that conversation it was understood that he 
promised the negro that, if he would consent to 
be sold separate and apart from his wife and chil¬ 
dren, he would provide for and take care of him. 
The woman and the children were put up and bid 
for by Mr. Lowndes, a brother-in-law of Gov¬ 
ernor Aiken, of the House of Representatives. 
He bought them, not for himself, but for his 
overseer. Under the impression that this con¬ 
tract was to be earned out in fairness and in good 
spirit, the negro man Frank was put up, and 
bought in by the agent of this other gentleman. 

Everbody supposed that this was all right and 
fair; but, to the utter amazement of the people, 
within two or three days afterwards, this man 
Frank was offered for sale to anybody who would 
buy him. There was indignation expressed 
about it which this gentleman could not resist. 
He then sold him to Mr. Lowndes, but still must 
have fifty dollars forhisprofit. He pocketed his 
fifty dollars and his share of the proceeds of that 
sale, and he returned home. Now, if any one 
desires to know who that man was, the letter 
which I send to the Secretary’s desk, and ask t« 
have read, will disclose. 

Mr. CLAY. \\ r as he a northern or a southern 
man ? 

Mr. EVANS. You will learn that when you 
hear the letter read. 

The Secretary read, as follows: 

Charleston, Jane 10, 1856. 

My dear Sin: Yours of the 4th instant, inclosing Mr. 
Tiffany’s letter, has been received. The facts of the case 
of Mr. Albert Sumner are substantially correct as stated ia 
Mr. Tiffany’s note. In a conversation with Mr. Tiffany, 
when 1 had the pleasure of seeing him here in February 
last, alluding to the fanatical and political ravings of thy 
Abolitionists at Washington, I expressed the opinion that 
they were actuated by political and sectional jealousy, and 
not by motives of philanthropy, and I incidentally men¬ 
tioned that the instances of the separation of families, 
often rhetorically described, was generally by the agency of 
foreigners, who were devoid of that sympathy which exists 
i between the native-born slaveholder and the slave. Ia 
illustration of my position, I stated to Mr. Tiffany that th* 
most inhuman and revolting case of the separation of fami¬ 
lies (recently and eloquently alluded to by the Hon. Charley 
Bunincr, “ to separate husband and wife, and to sell little 
children at the auction-block ”) that had ever come under 








18 

t 


my observation in tlie course of an experience of upwards 
of half a century, was one in which Mr. Albert Sumner, the 
brother of the lion. Charles Sumner, was chief agent. 

[Applause, and laughter in the galleries.] 

Mr. STUAR.T. Mr. President, I insist that 
the Chair shall preserve order. If it is necessary 
to clear the galleries, 1 hope it wili be effected for 
once, so that people may know what belongs to 
the proprieties of the Senate. If the Senate is to 
be turned into a theater, let us know it. I would 
be glad at this time if the Chair would exercise 
the authority which belongs to him to clear that 
part of the galleries from which the noise ema¬ 
nated. 

Mr. WELLER. That would certainly be very 
unfair. There could notb§ more than two or three 

f >ersonsengaged in the disturbance, and I should 
late very much to see the whole gallery cleared 
because there happened to be two or three disor¬ 
derly persons in the Senate Chamber. It is rarely 
you will find so large an assemblage as this that 
does not contain some persons who do not know 
how to behave themselves If the applause had 
been a general thing, it would be proper to clear 
the galleries; but it was confined to two or three 
persons—not more than that—and I hope, there¬ 
fore, that no notice will be taken of the matter, 
and that there will be no further disturbance in 
the Senate. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Bigler in 
the chair.) The Secretary will proceed with the 
reading of the letter. 

The Secretary continued, as follows: 

Upon Mr. Tiffany’s expressing much surprise, I told 
him that I was present on the occasion ; that if at anytime 
he should think proper to mention the fact, he might give 
me as his authority. Being referred to, I will, in conformity 
with your request, furnish you with the details as far as my 
memory serves me. In the winter of 1844,' Mr. Albert 
Sumner became entitled b}' marriage to a distributive share 
<$f the estate of Mr. and Mrs. S. Ball, of this State, by a 
decree of the court of equity in the case of Pell and Ball. 
At a sale of the negroes, in pursuance of the order of the 
court, I was present, and remarked that Mr. Sumner was 
very active in the management and arrangement of the sale. 
Among the negroes was a man servant remarkable for liis 
fidelity to his former master, who by the officer of the court 
was advertised to be sold, as is customary, with his family. 
Our friend, Mr. Charles T. Lowndes, proceeded to the sale 
with the intention of purchasing the aforesaid family, (for 
his overseer,) but to the surprise and indignation of Mr. 
Lowndes and the other bystanders, it was discovered that 
the father had been withdrawn and sold separately from his 
family, by the direction of Mr. Sumner, under promise, as 
was understood, of grea t indulgence in consideration of his 
pastservices. Underthese circumstances he was purchased 
by Mr. Sumner or his agent at a moderate rate. But in 
a very short time afterwards he was offered for sale by 
Mr. Sumner to more than one gentleman at a price, much 


beyond that at which Mr. Sumner had purchased him. But 
these gentlemen having refused to aid and abet a specula¬ 
tion so monstrous, and Mr. Sumner having ascertained that 
Mr. Lowndes had purchased the family, offered the servant 
at a price beyond that at which he had purchased him. Mr. 
Lowndes finally acceded, having the satisfaction of restor¬ 
ing the father to his family. It is a circumstance worthy 
of being mentioned that, in replying to Mr. Sumner, Mr. 
Lowndes, with the feelings which fill the bosom of a slave¬ 
holder who feels himself to he the protector and benefactor 
of his slaves, took the occasion of expressing, in a letter^ 
(which he submitted to Colonel Ashe and myself,) his 
denunciation of the proceeding in terms that would have 
aroused a southern gentleman. 

The above, as far as my memory serves me is a true and 
unvarnished account of the case to which Mr. Tiffany al¬ 
luded. The circumstances are impressed upon my memory 
from the fact of my having been particularly acquainted 
with them at the time, having been in consultation with 
Mr. Lowndes, and as events which do violence to one-’s 
feelings are calculated to make an impression. 

I will call upon Mr. Lowndes for a statement of the cir¬ 
cumstances, as far as he recollects them, and I may prob¬ 
ably delay this to go simultaneously with his. 

I am, dear sir, with esteem and respect, yours truly, 

WILLIAM B. PRINGLE.* 
Hon. William Aiken, House of Representatives . 

Mr. EVANS. On that letter I have no com¬ 
ment to make, and here I take my leave of the 
subject of slavery. 

Sir, I have been at the North. I have seen 
much, very much, there to admire; I have seen 
some things that I should be glad my country¬ 
men would avail themselves of. I doubt not, if 
northern gentlemen (I believe very few—none 
but invalids and commercial men—ever visit our 
country) would come among us, and see our in¬ 
stitutions—if they were to see how practically 
this form of civilization operates there, very much 
of their prejudice would be removed. 

There is nothing that I look upon with so much 
horror as the sectional jealousy which is fanning 
every day, and will shortly be fanned into a blaze, 
I fear, between the two sections of the country 
There is nothing that I could do, consistent with 
duty and consistent with honor, which I would 
not do to prevent it. I am no prophet; I would 
avoid, as far as I can, to look into the dark future 
which these things seem to indicate. I have often 
had occasion to say that I am a hopeful man; that 
I never look upon the dark side of things if I 
can possibly avoid it; but it is impossible that I 
should conceal from myself what the poet says, 
that 

“ Coming events cast their shadows before.” 

**#### 


* There are several other letters to the same effect. 













FROM THE 


IION. EOBEET M. T. HUNTEE’S SPEECH, 

DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JUNE 24, 1856. 


On motion of Mr. Bott.er, the Senate, as in Commit- 
toe of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill 
(S. No. 172) to authorize the people of Kansas to form a 
constitution and State government, preparatory to their 
admission into the Union when they have the requisite 
population. 

Mr. HUNTER said: Mr. President, it was with 
deep regret that I first saw the announcement of 
the passage of those resolutions by the Legisla¬ 
ture of the State of Massachusetts. I was con¬ 
cerned to see that great State interpose for the 
purpose of converting what seemed to me to be 
a personal dispute into the magnitude of a public 
quarrel. In the history of the two Houses of 
Congress since the institution of this Govern¬ 
ment, there have been many instances of personal 
collisions in which members have been engaged, 
arising out of words spoken in debate; but so 
far as I am acquainted with their history, this is 
the first case in which any State has interposed 
for the purpose of taking part in such quarrels. 
When Mr. John Guincy Adams, of Massachu¬ 
setts, was President of the U nited States, his Secre¬ 
tary of State challenged a Senator from Virginia 
for words spoken in debate, and the quarrel thus 
made was not settled until two shots had been 
exchanged on the ground. The Legislature of 
Virginia did not interpose for the purpose of de¬ 
manding of the Senate to protect the privileges 
of its Senator, or to shield him from the conse¬ 
quences of his speech; but, on the contrary, it 
was content to leave him to meet all his personal 
responsibilities, under the belief that he would be 
able to defend himself. There have been cases 
in which members have fallen at the hands of 
each other for disputes arising out of debates; and 
yet I know of no instance before, in which the 
Legislature of any State has stepped forward to 
prejudge the case, and to pronounce the sentence 
which is to be given. 

I can see no consequence so likely to flow from 
this attempt, in the present instance, as that of 
exasperating the unfortunate sectional dispute 
which is now raging in the country. But, sir, 
that was not the only thing in these resolutions 
which excited pain and regret in my mind. I was 
concerned to see that, when the State of Massa¬ 
chusetts sat in judgment on this case, it had 
nothing to say by way of rebuke to its Senator 
for the offensive language which he uttered, not 
merely towards a majority of the members of this 
body, or towards certain individuals who were in 
it, but towards all the slave States, and particu¬ 
larly towards the States of South Carolina and 
Virginia. Not only did she have no word of 
rebuke to offer for such a speech—a speech which 
called out from the venerable Senator from Mich¬ 
igan [Mr. Cass] the declaration that it was the 
uiQst unpatriotic and un-American speech he had 


ever heard on this floor—not only, I say, did she 
have no wmrd of rebuke to utter for the offensive 
personalities of such a speech, but she actually 
indorsed and encouraged them, for she returned 
him her thanks for having made them; for in no 
other light can we regard her resolution “approv¬ 
ing” of Mr. Sumner’s manliness and courage in 
his earnest and fearless declaration of free prin¬ 
ciples, and his defense of human rights and free 
territory. 

Mr. President, so long as the-attacks on my 
State emanated from a single individual, I had 
nothing to say. Virginia can live under the taunts 
of any individual, I care not who he be; and 
portentous indeed would be the day, if it should 
ever arise, when can be said, the 

u Fnflcon, tow’ring in her pride of place, 

Was by a mousing owl hawk’d at, and kill’d.” 

But when a State of this Confederacy comes 
forward to indorse the attack, and to thank the 
person who has uttered what I conceive to be 
a slander, it appears to me that I owe it as a duty 
to my constituents and to myself, as well as to 
others who may be concerned, to examine into 
the foundation upon which this accusation has 
been so unnecessarily and unprovokedly made 
against my State. 

I pass over the personalities towards friends of 
mine on this floor—towards myself even, so far as 
I am included in that majority wlio voted for the 
Kansas-Nebraska bill, and towards the slavehold¬ 
ing States in the generality, to which I belong; and 
I come to the specific attack on the State of Vir¬ 
ginia, which I understand the State of Massa¬ 
chusetts to indorse and approve. The Senator 
from Massachusetts, [Mr. Sumner,] speaking of 
my colleague, said: 

<c He holds the commission of Virginia : but he does not 
represent that early-Virginia, so dear to our hearts, which 
gave to us the pen of Jefferson, by which the equality of 
men w r as declared, and the sword of Washington, by which 
independence was secured; but he represents that other 
Virginia, from which Washington and Jefferson now avert 
their faces, where human beings are bred as cattle for tlra 
shambles, and where a dungeon rewards the pious matron 
who teaches little children to relieve their bondage by read¬ 
ing the Book of Life. It is proper that such a Senator, 
representing such a State, should rail against free Kansas*” 

The foundation upon which this accusation 
rests—and it has not even the poor merit of ori¬ 
ginality with him who has last made it, is the fact 
that slavery, and as a consequence of it the slave 
trade, exists in the State of Virginia—that is to 
say, slaves are not only held in bondage, but, being 
treated as property, it follows as a consequence 
that they are sold from one to another. These 
are the facts upon which the attack is based. 
The coloring in which it is dressed up depends 
on the fancy or the taste of him who may happen 







20 


to use the brush. I say it has not even the poor 
merit of originality, but it is a stale and hackneyed 
reproach in the cant of all the abolition news¬ 
papers. It was made by a distinguished scholar j 
and rhetorician on the other side of the water, | 
who assailed the States of Virginia and North : 
Carolina for what he called the domestic slave 
trade—a man who, though distinguished for his 
felicity in picture writing, too often mars its effect 
by the extravagance of the coloring which he 
uses—I mean the celebrated Macaulay. The 
foundation on which this rests is, that owing to 
the fact of the juxtaposition of these two races 
on our soil, slavery has flowed from it as a 
necessary incident. These are circumstances of 
long standing, and for which we are no more 
responsible than those who accuse us. History 
proves that, so far as Virginia was concerned, 
this institution was fastened upon her against her 
remonstrance by the British Government. His¬ 
tory also shows, and the Senator from Massachu¬ 
setts confesses, the complicity of his State in his 
speech, that the slave was sold to us in great part 
by the men of Old England and New England; 
and surely the buyer could not have been more 
responsible than he who sold to him. 

Now, sir, out of the fact that these races have 
been standing together side by side in great num¬ 
bers in the relation of master and slave, it has 
followed that the happiness of both races requires 
that this relation should be kept up. This has 
been proved by the experience of the British Gov¬ 
ernment itself; and if there were no such experi¬ 
ence, it could be proved by any one who knew 
how to reason upon the principles of human na¬ 
ture. Turn them loose to-morrow side by side, 
and you would see the black race perishing in the 
fierce competition which would ensue with the 
ruperior and white race, which was dominant 
around it. You would see either that, or you 
would see that as they increased in numbers, and 
population began to press upon the means of sub¬ 
sistence, the white man would leave the country 
and abandon some of the fairest portions of this 
continent to the occupation of the negro. We 
know that from the experiment which has already- 
been tried. I may say that human nature and 
tire experience of States around us both teach 
us that, although the slave would be nominally 
emancipated, he would in fact be in far worse 
bondage than he was held before. He would j 
have not one, but many masters; and instead of I 
having some one person who was responsible for 
his protection, who was linked to him, as all per¬ 
sons are who inherit slaves, by the ties of a cer¬ 
tain sort of family connection, he would belong 
to every white man, and nobody would be re¬ 
sponsible for the treatment by which he was 
crushed. I say this is proved, too, by the experi¬ 
ment which has been tried by the English Gov¬ 
ernment itself in the West India Islands.' We 
know that if a similar experiment were tried 
here, its effect would be to substitute barbarism 
for civilization, and that the wilderness and waste 
would begin to encroach at once upon the culti¬ 
vated field. 

We know, on the other hand, that under this ! 
institution of slavery we can present more than 
three millions of African negroes who exhibit a ! 
reater degree of progress and improvement, of 
appiness and virtue, than the same number of j 


that race who can be found under any other Gov¬ 
ernment or in any other clime. I say, then, that 
we can point to all these things to prove, and to 
show, that the holding of these men in bondage, 
is the necessary result of those circumstances 
which originated out of the action in part of Old 
England and of New England herself. Now, if 
we can show that the preservation of this rela¬ 
tion inures to the benefit both of the white and 
the black race, and that to destroy it would effect 
a cruel injury to each, do we not show what jus¬ 
tifies us in holding them in that condition? Do 
we not give reasons which prove that it is our 
duty to do so ? 

By what right, then, does any man reproach 
us for doing that which places the society of our 
country in the very best possible position? Sir, 
the statesman is not responsible for not attain¬ 
ing the greatest ideal good. He is responsible 
for not doing the best under the circumstances; 
and he who has done that has discharged his full 
duty to his race and to his principles. Are we 
to say, we will put down any organization, social 
or political, in which we find individual cases of 
evil and injustice ? What social system or insti¬ 
tutions would stand?—what government on the 
face of the earth could endure for a minute, under 
such a doctrine? We know that in the great 
scheme of creation itself, framed by an all-pow¬ 
erful, all-wise, and all-good Being, - evil exists. 
He permits it, and why, we do not understand; 
but he does not destroy the works of his creation 
on this account. We know that, in any form of 
society which could be organized, evil must exist; 
and to reproach a statesman or a people because 
in their institutions they may not have attained 
perfection, is to demand of them more than is 
possible for human nature. All that they can be 
required to do is what is best under the circum¬ 
stances. tie who demands more, and makes 
war upon all Governments in which more is not 
effected, is an enemy of his race, and a disturber 
of the peace of mankind—a man to be ranked, 
not with the statesmen, but with the madmen of 
the world. 

Now, sir, I ask if both reason and experience do 
not prove that to retain these two races in that rela¬ 
tion on our own soil is the very best thing which 
can be done for them? But, Mr. President, th« 
mischief of the attempt to turn these slaves loose, 

; for the not doing of which we are thus reproached 
both abroad and at home, would not be confined 
to the two races off our soil; it would extend to 
those very countries which hurl these reproaches 
at us, and to the whole civilized world. There 
are probably as many people outside of the slave 
States who derive profit and existence from th« 
proceeds of slave labor, as are to be found within 
them. On the great staple of slave-grown cotton, 
it is now estimated that nearly, or quite, thred 
million British subjects depend for their subsist¬ 
ence. I take this from the recent declaration of 
the Manchester Peace Society, and I have seen a 
similar declaration before. When we come to 
add the number who depend on the other slave- 
grown staples, not only in Great Britain but in all 
Europe, and in the free States of our own Con¬ 
federacy, we should find, I believe, that there 
were more depending for their existence on the 
institution of slavery, and its profits, outside of 
our siaveholding States than within them. Wi 
















21 

. ---- — - : - 


should find, probably, if we could pursue the in¬ 
quiry strictly and accurately, that Massachusetts 
herself is more interested in the profits of slave 
labor, and subsists a larger number of people 
upon it, than do, perhaps, the States of Maryland 
or Missouri, or even some other slave States which 
I might enumerate. 

Not only this; but those who thus make sla¬ 
very profitable by creating the demand for the 
products of slave labor, are as much responsible 
for the institution as we are who own the slaves. 
The deadliest blow that could be dealt to slavery 
would be to refuse to receive the products of 
slave labor. Do that, and you destroy the de¬ 
mand which makes it profitable. Do that, and, 
so far as Old England or New England are con¬ 
cerned, you would do it at only a pecuniary 
expense; but it would cost us not merely money, 
but our social and political happiness. They 
could do that at a mere pecuniary expense; but 
will they do it, or have they.done it? Why, sir, 
it is a little remarkable that, in this very philippic 
which Macaulay uttered against the institution 
of slavery in Virginia anti North Carolina, he 
was engaged in the work, in which he succeeded, 
ofrepealingthediscriminationagainstslave-grown 
sugar, which had been made for the benefit of 
their own colonies, upon whom they had forced 
emancipation. He not only made it to force the 
repeal of that discriminating dtfty, but he suc¬ 
ceeded; and England did repeal it, notwithstand¬ 
ing the obligations which she owed to her colo¬ 
nies, on whom she had forced this harsh measure, 
to give them, at least, that advantage in her own 
markets. 

If we examine the history of the institution, 
we find, as I have just endeavored to show, from 
its commencement to the present period, that 
those who now reproach us are as responsible 
as we. In the first instance, they sold the slave 
and we bought him. Now, we sell the products 
of his labor and they buy it. The complicity is 
the same; the process is reversed. It has been 
said, sir, and well said, that the judgment of him 
was to be commended, 

“ Who sent, the thief that stole the gold away, 

And punished him who put it in his way.” 

Upon that principle, I submit that, if there be 
gTjrilt and if there be wrong in maintaining this 
relation, they are as responsible for it as we are. 
But in point of fact there is no guilt either in the 
one or in the other. The wrong is in converting 
that into a matter of reproach against us which 
is not properly the subject of reproach, and for 
which, if it were, they are as much responsible 
as we are. 

Mr. President, it is said that slaves are sold as 
chattels and as property from one to another in 
the States in which the institution is tolerated. I 
know that this presents a splendid field for decla¬ 
mation; and if I had not known it before, I should 
have known it after following Macaulay in his 
display upon this subject. I know that individual 
cases may be selected, some of which are real, 
and some of which are imaginary, in which hard¬ 
ships and misery may be shown; but notwith¬ 
standing all that, I say the practice of selling 
them from one to another, and the slave trade it¬ 
self, is the very safety-valve of the institution, so 
far as both races are concerned, in the South. It 
is owing to this that the slaves have been able to 


make the progress which they have done. It ia 
through this process that they acquire the meana 
and facilities for emigration which are necessary 
for the improvement of every race that has ever 
made any improvement in the history of man. 
The stronger races satisfy this necessity of their 
condition by armed emigration; the weaker aro 
made to do it by forced emigration; and history 
shows that the African has performed his share of 
that process, from an age beyond the date of the 
pyramids, in the caravan of the .slavetrader. Some 
of the very routes which he then traveled are 
pursued by him now for the same purposes and 
objects as if they had been traced out for him by 
some inexorable law of nature. 

We know from experience that in the southern 
State's it is this which has mitigated the institu¬ 
tion and ameliorated his condition; because it is 
under this, that, when population begins to press 
on the means of subsistence, he is removed from 
a place where his labor pays but little to one in 
which it pays more, not only to the master but 
himself. Although it may seem to be hard that 
he should be thus forced to emigrate at the will 
of another instead of his own, yet, when we come 
to scrutinize closely the process, we find that the 
line of emigration which he pursues according 
to the laws of trade, is precisely that line which 
he would take if he were to follow only his 
own interests. Should we not find, if we were 
to examine it, in the history of the emigration of 
whites, as many individual instances of misery 
and suffering, as many cases of separation between 
members of the same family, as we do amongst 
the slaves who are thus sold from one State^to 
another? I believe that, if we could trace the 
matter, we should find that the emigration from 
the Sutherland property, in Scotland, (Mr. Ma¬ 
caulay’s own country,) was as involuntary in 
its movement and as sad in its consequences to 
those who made it, as any that ever took place 
from Virginia or North Carolina to the cotton 
States south of them. In the crowded population 
of the Old World, I believe we could find instances 
of emigration forced by circumstances which 
would harrow the heart fully as deeply as any 
that could be referred to in our States. 

Why, Mr. President, under the operation of 
this trade, the effect has been that the moment 
the negro’s labor becomes cheap in one region, 
and he gets a smaller share of the profits of his 
labor, he is transferred to another where the 
profits of his labor are greater, and where, of 
course, he gets a larger share, and where, in tire 
end, he receives more consideration. Stop that 
trade to-morrow, and 1 believe you would inflict 
the greatest curse on the slave in the South that 
could be inflicted upon him. Pen him up in the 
old States, and the consequence must be, either 
that he must perish under the sufferings of a 
collision with the stronger race, when population 
presses too hard upon the means of subsistence, 
or else the whites, will abandon the country, and 
leave it to the negro and his original barbarism. 

Under these circumstances, if this process be 
one of relief and amelioration to the slave, I ask 
how is it that it should be the subject of so much, 
reproach to those who permit it, and who find it 
necessary for the improvement of this very race 
that they should do so? If in truth it did deserve 
I the reproaches which have been cast upon it— 














if in truth Virginia did accusations deserve the 
■which have been thus made, I ask if it lies in the 
mouth of Old England, and New England, to utter 
them ? 1 ask if it was out of their quivers'tjiat she 
had a right to expect such an arrow to be directed 
at her?' Have I not shown that they'were as 
responsible as we .for the ciredmstances which 
make this institution necessary; that if we were 
the buyers they were the sellers; and that if we 
sell the product of slave labor they buy it, and 
contribute their full share to the maintenance of 
the institution? If they would destroy all trade 
from which there may be possible evil, why do 
they continue this, upon which the institution of 
their attacks depends for its existence ? 

Sir, in regard to Massachusetts, she was not 
only glad to receive our assistance in the Revolu¬ 
tion, when we both held and sold slaves, but she 
was willing to admit us into the same family with 
herself. The men of that day—the men of the 
revolutionary generation who covered the name 
of Massachusetts with glory, the generation which 
produced the heroes of Concord, and Lexington, 
and Bunker Hill, and gave birth to the sages that 
illustrated the revolutionary councils, was not 
only willing but glad to receive -Virginia into a 
family alliance/ They were willing to enter into 
an association by which they bound themselves 
to put down insurrection in the States—by which 
they bound themselves to give a certain represent¬ 
ation for the slaves—by which they bound them¬ 
selves to restore the fugitive slave. And here it 
is to be remembered, that the covenants which 
they entered into the men of that day always kept. 
Under these circumstances, after they invited us 
into that family alliance, Lask if it is fair, if it is 
rightful, if it is honorable in'their descendants to 
use the common Hall^provided for our common 
deliberations for the purpose of abusing and vitu¬ 
perating us on account of that very state of things 
of which they had knowledge and cognizance 
when they entered into this union with us ? I ask 
if they are not estopped by their own deed ? 

Now, Mr. President, we hear a new doctrine. 
"We are told that the men of the present day are 
not to be held responsible for the men of that 
eneration, which is branded by one of their 
escendants with turpitude. It is the Senator 
from Massachusetts who says, “ Is the acknowl¬ 
edged turpitude of a departed generation to be¬ 
come an example for us?” Thus they are not 
content with hurling accusations against us, but 
they brand with turpitude the memory of their 
ancestors who entered into those bonds by which 
they became members of the great family of 
States, to which Virginia, too, belongs. Sir, if I 
ani to choose between the generation which gave 
birth to the heroes and sages of whom I have 
spoken, and the men who now-cast shame on 
their graves, I say, let me rather commune with 
the memories of those than walk in the living 
presence of thesh. If I am to choose between 
those heroes and sages, as I said before, who en¬ 
tered into a covenant to restore the fugitive slave, 
and who kept it, and these latter-day saints, 
who, whilst they claim all the benefits of the bond 
for themselves, refuse to execute their part of the 
compact, because they have discovered some law 
of higher obligation, which dispenses with the 
obligation of their oaths to support the Consti¬ 
tution, and discharge its duties, I say, let me 


associate with the men who made that covenant, 
and kept it, in preference to those who are break¬ 
ing it. If I am to choose between the generation 
of men who, under the guarantee of treaties, 
under the sanction of laws, transferred the Afri¬ 
can from a worse to a better condition, and those 
who, in'violation of law and of the Constitution, 
steal away the southern slave, and transfer him 
front a better to a worse condition, let me live 
with the first rather than with the last. If we 
have enjoyed the respect and affection of that 
generation which covered the name of Massachu¬ 
setts with glory, we may live under the taunts of 
those who strike at the very memories of their 
fathers, because it is only through them that they 
may aim a blow at us. 

Turpitude, sir! to talk of the turpitude of the 
generation of men who gave to Massachusetts 
the fair inheritance of glory which some of their 
descendants are now wasting so rapidly! When 
I hear such charges, I pause before the majesty 
of the silent shadows of those mighty dead, and 
wonder that a voice is not given to them to speak 
to those of their descendants who are thus vio¬ 
lating their engagements, trampling on their an¬ 
cient friendships, and casting shame on their 
names and graves. But, sir, why do I wonder? 
If such a voice could be evoked from the tombs, 
and were it to charm ever so wisely, it would fall 
unheeded on the ear of the fanatical Abolitionist. 
He will not hear Moses and the Px-ophets; nor 
would he hear their voices, even if they could be 
permitted to speak to him. 

But these are not the only charges. We are 
told of the dungeon to which the pious matron is’ 
consigned in Virginia who teaches the slave to 
read. Sir, I have seen in the State of Virginia 
thousands of slaves who could read and wi-ite; 
and if there ever was any matron, pious or other¬ 
wise, who was imprisoned for teaching them, I 
have yet to hear the history of the case. I have 
never known such a case; I do not believe that 
one exists. I think I have been told, that in one 
of the States of this Union there is a law making 
it penal to keep Christmas; but does any man 
suppose such a law has ever been enfoi’ced within 
the last quarter of a century? Suppose it were 
so; suppose some such enactments as these charged 
upon Vii'ginia wex-e to be found upon our statute- 
book, who are responsible for them? Are not 
those l'esponsible who say to us, “ Educate your 
slave at your peril; give him light and intelligence 
if you dare; and, if you do, we will make these 
gifts the means of applying the knife to your 
throats, and the torch to your dwellings?” Are 
not these the persons who would be responsible, 
and not we, if such things were to be found on 
the statute-book? I will say, however, not to 
them, not to those who have nothing to do with 
it, but to my countrymen in the South, that I 
believe it is our duty to remove whatever may 
cumber unprofitably the statute-book, whatever 
is improper or unjust. I believe that the progress 
of light and intelligence in both i-aces is not in¬ 
compatible with the institution of southeni slavery. 
I believe that we are responsible for the happiness 
of all who are committed to our charge, whether 
they be white or black; and I say, let us do right 
in despite of the Abolitionist, however lie may 
throw himself in the path of the improvement jf 
the slave. We are strong enough within tho 













23 


Union, or without the Union , to defend ourselves, 
and with the blessing of Providence let us do right, 
and leave the consequences to God. To him who 
intrudes his opinion upon us—to him who has no 
right to make an inquiry as to our domestic affairs, 
I have only to say, “ There is the southern slave; 
he speaks for the institution of slavery in our 
section; produce to us the same number of Afri¬ 
can negroes in bondage or otherwise, and in any, 
other country, who have made the same progress 1 
in improvement, and then we may acknowledge 
your right to reproach us; but, until you do that, 
we are entitled rather to the voice of approbation. 

Mr. Hunter then proceeds to defend Virginia 
from the aspersions cast upon her by the Sen¬ 
ator from Massachusetts, and remarks upon 
that part of the Massachusetts resolutions— 

“ In which she undertakes to sit in judgment on 
a case here pending, and not merely to request 
her Representatives, and to instruct her Senators, 
as other States do, but to “demand” of us that 
we should carry out her fiat and execute her 
judgment.” 

He, also, considers, at length, the question 
whether the assault of Mr. Brooks upon Mr. 
Sumner was a breach of privilege of the Senate, 1 
and says, that, though in the outset inclined to ; 
think it such, upon mature consideration, he 
does not “ believe that, so far as we are con¬ 
cerned, it was a breach of privilege.” In sup¬ 
port of this opinion, he sites numerous prece- J 
dents of American decisions sustaining his views, 
and continues: 

I say then, sir, that, so far from being gov¬ 
erned by law in the course which we have taken, 

I respectfully suggest that we have departed from j 
the true view of the power which the Constitu-1 
tion has given us; that we have acted upon ; 
the false light of precedents, whose principles 
do not apply to our case; and that we have 
made a mistake in the course which we have pur¬ 
sued. At any rate, I will say that surely we have 
no right to invoke the exercise of an arbitrary 
jurisdiction of any extreme discretionary power 
which may be lodged in the other House. We 1 
know that the free States of this Confederacy j 
constitute a majority of it. Suppose they were 
all of them to act in the spirit of these Massachu¬ 
setts resolutions; suppose they were to encourage 
their Senators to insult the members from the 
slave States; suppose they were to say: “ If this 
is resented, you must expel him if you can find 
two thirds to do it; and if you cannot, you 
must annoy him by the power of your majority 
until you make Ills seat intolerable to him:”—I 
ask, under such circumstances, how long would 
it be before there would be a dissolution of such 
an assembly ? I ask, what southern man would 
be willing to sit here if he was thus to be governed 
by such a power, exercised in such a manner? 

Air. President, I know it may be said, on the 
other side, is there not danger that freedom of 
speech will be abridged, if men undertake to resent 
or punish its excesses? I admit that evils may 
occur on that side, but not so great on that horn 
f the dilemma as on this; because it is always to 
e remembered that, in the other alternative, the 


courts of law are open, where you may sue by 
j private action for damages, where you may indict 
i for assault, and where the court has power and 
| jurisdiction to punish for the offense, in either 
i person or property; so that there is a full remedy 
and an impartial tribunal for any such injury. 
Besides that, we must further remember that ona 
man is about as able to defend himself as another 
is to assail him, and that in such contests there 
are two to be engaged, so the probability is that, 
in the end, no very great mischief can ensue. At 
any rate, if scenes did occur which were to be 
deplored, if events did take place which were to 
be condemned, still we know there is not near so 
much danger on that side as there would be in 
employing the arbitrary and discretionary power 
of the House, vested in it only for extreme occa¬ 
sions, in cases where the judgment might be at¬ 
tributed not so much to the sense of right as to 
sectional feeling, or to party bias. I think that, 
under such circumstances as these, it is always 
best to transfer such feuds from the Houses of 
Congress to the courts of law—from a tribunal 
which must of course be, to some extent, preju¬ 
diced and partial, to one which is unprejudiced, 
and impartial. 

I give this counsel for the sake of peace. I 
advise such a measure, as one which seems to 
me to afford a solution by which we may escape 
from some of those difficulties that seem to threaten 
us with so much exasperation and strife. I be¬ 
lieve that the merits of the whole case may thus 
be reached, and thus, too, we may save ourselves 
from the agitation which, rely upon it, is doing 
great mischief here and abroad. I think the Sen¬ 
ate ought to reverse its position. Indeed, it would 
be but acting under the precedent in the case of 
Gunn, (a Senator who challenged a member of 
the House of Representatives,) if we were to with¬ 
draw our application after the apology of the 
member from South Carolina. In that case the 
proceedings were dropped the moment the Sen¬ 
ator declared his contrition for what had hap¬ 
pened. I believe that if this were done here, and 
the case were left to the courts, we should save 
both Houses from a scene of strife and exasper¬ 
ation which every patriot and every lover of his 
country must deplore. 

Suppose that two foreign nations were mutually 
to instruct their representatives to insult and abuse 
each other: how long would peace be maintained ? 
Suppose that the members of the same family 
were to use their opportunities of daily inter¬ 
course for the purpose of mutual vituperation: 
how long would harmony exist? Suppose that 
States which belonged to the same Union should 
use the common hall of their deliberations for the 
purpose of mutual crimination and recrimination: 
how long would that Union be maintained? Sir, 
“in the letter which killeth” it might endure 
for a while, but in “ the spirit which giveth life” 
it would soon be gone and lost forever. 

Now, sir, I ask if these arc not considerations 
which should be impressed upon all? Our insti¬ 
tutions rest not upon parchment securities, but 
upon the broad basis of public affection. Who 
shall measure the crime of him that disturbs the 
waters of the stream of public opinion which to us 
are the very waters of life—of him who troubles 
the stream at its fountain that he may defile it 
through the whole length of its course, until we 





















24 


turn loathing away from its waters, although our 
thirst may be almost unto death itself? Sir, the 
laws and the Constitution and the ordinances of 
our country, to have efficient force and life and 
being, must be engraved upon the hearts of the 
people. Once erase or obliterate that inscription, 
and it will not be long before the lawgiver him¬ 
self, in some fit of exasperation, will shiver into 
, fragments the tablets u pon which they are written, 
as mere unspeaking stone. 

In view of all these circumstances, does it not 
behoove us to do something to appease this strife, 
to settle these difficulties, to allay this bitterness? 
Who could have the heart, at such a moment as 
this, to engage in the work of crimination and 
recrimination amongst the States of the Confeder¬ 
acy ? We all belong to the same family, and the 
character of the whole family is disparaged if we 
injure the reputation of one of its members. What 
pleasure or what profit should I derive by in¬ 
juring the reputation of Massachusetts? by dim¬ 
ming the luster of her revolutionary glory ? by 
talcing a leaf from that chaplet of immortal flowers 
with which she is crowned? Sir, so far as I am 
concerned, instead of taking one stone from the 
Bunker Hill monument, I would add another to 
it. Let it tower to the skies, bearing upwards 
from earth to heaven whatever message of love 
and admiration may be transmitted from the liv¬ 
ing to the dead. Let it stand through the flight 
of ages, and carry down the story of those men 
and their deeds to the last syllable of recorded 
time. I will raise no sacrilegious hand against a 
single stone on that altar; and if there be any who 
has a heart for such a deed, he can find no sym¬ 
pathy from me. 

Who can have the disposition to disparage the 
reputation and the military glory of any of the 
Old Thirteen ? If there be any man who can have 
a heart for such a work, he can have but little 
feeling in common with me. I will not aid in such 
a work. What materials are these that we are 
collecting for history? What weapons are we 
placing in the hands of those who wish vis ill, and 


-who delight in every opportunity to disparage 
ourselves and our institutions? 

Mr. President, it has been said by wise and 
good men, “ give us peace abroad.” I sympa¬ 
thize with them in that wish; but it may not 
always be in our power to secure that peace. It 
may require the will of another as well as of our¬ 
selves; but I say, give us what we can secure if 
we choose—give us peace at home. We want its 
opportunities to work out our destiny, and to 
crown with the glory of success the most wonderful 
experiment in human happiness that has ever been 
attempted in the history of man. We must have 
peace at home if we would wish to inspire either 
fear or respect abroad. Is there nothing in the 
condition of things around us—is there nothing in 
the condition of things abroad, to induce us to do 
something to compose these differences, to allay 
this excitement, to settle these feuds ? Can arfy 
man reconcile it to his conscience to feed high the 
hot fires of sectional strife on such an occasion as 
this ? Are the doors of our Chamber, are the 
doors of the Congress of the United States, like 
those of the temple of Janus, to be opened only 
for war, for civil war, for domestic strife ? or may 
we not rather close them upon such scenes, or 
else open them to send forth once more the mes¬ 
sage of peace and good will, and to proclaim 
throughout the land a vow to devote ourselves to 
the common good of a common country, and to 
bury, as far as we can, the recollection of thesw 
unhappy disputes ? 

Mr. President, I do believe that the time has 
arrived when we should look at the state of 
circumstances around us, coolly and dispassion¬ 
ately, and when every man should oome to the 
settlement of these differences with the will to 
sacrifice much of feeling, anything of the pride of 
opinion, every thing that he can, consistently with 
duty and conscience, to settle and quiet them. 
Senators, I say to you that you hold in your 
hands the issues of life and death to this mighty 
Republic,, to this great Union. On your souls, I 
charge you to take heed how you deal with them. 


Printed at the Office of the Congressional Globe. 













~ :lx “ iTi ■»- 1 ^ ■ Or— r 

N^V>—^\ru=roJtr2*-^ \pf\, \Txu--^r4XX^» , 


•1 




MINORITY REPORT. 




ra- 






MINORITY REPORT. 


Tuly 11, 1856.—Ordered to be printed. 


Mr. Mordecai Oliver, from tiie Select Committee, submitted the fol¬ 
lowing views of the minority. 

The undersigned , member of the committee of three appointed by the 
House of Representatives to investigate the state of affairs in Kansas , 
disagreeing with the views and conclusions of his two colleagues , in 
the written statement submitted by them touching the result of their 
investigations , begs leave , under the permission of the House , to 
present a counter-statement. 

The authority under which the committee acted was an order of 
this House, passed the 19th of March last, directing them to “ pro¬ 
ceed to inquire into, and collect evidence in regard to, the troubles in 
Kansas generally, and particularly in regard to any fraud or force at¬ 
tempted or practised in reference to any of the elections which have 
taken place in said Territory, either under the law organizing said 
Territory or any pretended laiv which may be alleged to have taken 
effect there since ; and when the investigation was completed, to re¬ 
port the evidence so collected to the House.’’ 

Under this resolution the committee entered upon the discharge 
of the duties imposed on them with as much dispatch as possible. 
Their labors were closed at Westport, Missouri, on the 9tli of June, 
1856. The paper in the nature of a report, drawn up by the col¬ 
leagues of the undersigned on the committee, was not read to or by 
him, and he knew nothing of its contents or character until it was 
presented to the House. It was not the expectation of the under¬ 
signed that any other report would be submitted by them than the 
testimony taken. A full execution of the commission of the House, 
he thought, was the presentation of the evidence collected. But as 
the majority of the committee have thought proper to comment on the 
character of the testimony, and to give their version of the substance 
of the facts, which is altogether at variance from his understanding 
of both, the undersigned feels it incumbent on him to follow their 
example, by presenting like comments on his part. 

It must have been apparent to all, that the report of the majority 
was not only ex' parte and one-sided, but highly partisan in its char¬ 
acter from beginning to end. This appears all through the paper, in 
the manner of their statement of all things referred to by them, 
facts, many of which statements of facts thus made rest upon no evi¬ 
dence whatever collected by the committee 




KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


09 


To justify this remark, the undersigned will, in the beginning of 
what he has to offer, barely allude to a few statements in the report 
of the majority, from which its whole character may be judged. It 
is, for instance, said by the majority, that u a party under H. C. 
Pate, composed chiefly of citizens of Missouri , were taken prisoners 
by a party of settlers ; and while your committee were at Westport, 
a company, chiefly of Missourians, accompanied by the sitting dele¬ 
gate, went to relieve Pate and his party, and a collision was pre¬ 
vented by the United States troops.” 

Now, the undersigned affirms most positively that this statement has 
not one particle of proof, taken before the committee, to rest upon ! 
There is no testimony in the whole mass collected by the committee 
on that matter—none at all. But the undersigned affirms, that, in 
in his opinion, and according to the best of his information and belief, 
the fact is contrary to the statement of the majority ; at all events, 
so far as relates to Captain Pate. Since that report has been made, 
under indulgence granted by this House, testimony has been taken on 
that point, from which it is made very clearly to appear that this state¬ 
ment, made without proof in the first instance, was founded wholly in 
error. Captain Pate himself—a man of character and integrity— 
swears that, to the best of his knowledge, “ not one of them were cit¬ 
izens of Missouri.” This deposition the undersigned here refers to, 
without spreading it out at large, and makes it a part of his report 
as fully and completely as if it were given in full in this place. 

Again. The statement about the “ young man being seized in the 
town of Atchison, and, under circumstances of gross barbarity, tarred 
and cottoned, and in that condition sent to his family,” is entirely 
unsustained by any proof in the mass of that taken by the committee. 
It is true, testimony was taken as to alleged facts of this character ; 
but when it was proposed to go fully into the investigation of the 
whole truth of such charges, and not to rest them on ex parte state¬ 
ments alone, the majority of the committee abandoned the investiga¬ 
tion, and struck out the testimony which they had taken. But the 
undersigned has not time to go on with such specifications. He will 
here barely add, that all like statements in the report, as to the exist¬ 
ing condition of the Territory, are wholly gratuitous and unsupported 
by any testimony taken by the committee. For the correctness of 
what he now affirms, the undersigned appeals to the testimony on file ; 
and to counteract the impression of such statements by the majority 
of the committee, he begs leave to refer to the sworn depositions here¬ 
unto appended and made part of his report, as fully as if the same 
were set forth at large. 

The undersigned affirms, most positively and distinctly, that the 
testimony taken by the committee contains no matter going to dis¬ 
prove or deny in the slightest degree these great, leading, and con¬ 
trolling facts in the merits of the controversy which gave rise to the. 
organization of this committee, to wit : that an election for a Terri¬ 
torial legislature was held in Kansas Territory on the 30th of March, 
1855, in pursuance of the proclamation of A. II. Reeder, governor of 
the Territory under the organic law ; that, in that proclamation, the 
time and places of voting were set forth ; that the judges of election 


70 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


were appointed by him, with instructions as to how their places were 
to be filled if they or any of them refused or failed to act; that he 
reserved the power to himself to judge, in the first instance, of the 
election returns, and that he did so act; that the returns were made 
to him, and he did set aside the election of but nine members of the 
twenty-six elected to the house of representatives, and three of the 
thirteen elected to the council, and gave his certificate of election to 
the other seventeen members of the house, and ten members of the 
council, being a majority of both branches of the legislature ; that he 
ordered new elections in thos« districts where he had set aside the re¬ 
turns ; that the governor convened the legislature, thus constituted, ac¬ 
cording to law, on the 1st of July, 1855, and communicated with them 
officially after they were organized, and recognised them as a legally 
and properly constituted law-making body ; and never, until August, 
1855, after he was removed from the office of governor, did he object 
to the election of a majority of the legislature, both in the council 
and in the house of representatives, to whom he had previously given 
certificates. 

These great leading and essential facts, upon which the validity or 
invalidity of laws, or “ pretended laws ,” of Kansas must rest, are not 
denied, or even assailed, by a particle of testimony taken by the com¬ 
mittee ; and, with these facts unassailed and unimpeached, it is be¬ 
yond the comprehension of the undersigned how the majority could 
come to the conclusion that the laws passed by the Territorial legisla¬ 
ture were null and void in consequence of any illegality, even if such 
had been proved, in the election of its members. All questions re¬ 
lating to that election were closed by their waiver at the proper time, 
and without an investigation by the proper authority. This is a well- 
fixed principle in all our representative institutions ; upon it they all 
rest, and with the correctness of it Governor Reeder himself seems to 
be duly impressed. This the testimony clearly discloses. In a letter 
found in the streets of Lawrence, and proven before the committee to 
be in the hand-writing of Grovernor Reeder, and bearing his genuine 
signature, dated in this city on the 12th of February, 1856, and ad¬ 
dressed to a friend of his in Kansas Territory, he says : 

“ As to putting a set of laws in operation in opposition to the Terri¬ 
torial government, my opinion is confirmed instead of being shaken ; 
my predictions have all been verified so far, and will be in the future. 
We will be , so far as legality is concerned, in the wrong ; and that is no 
trifling matter , in so critical a state of things, and in view of such bloody 
consequences. * * * * * I may speak my plain and private 

opinion to our friends in Kansas, for it is my duty. But to the pub¬ 
lic, as you will see by my published letter, I show no divided front.’’ 

This letter, and another also found, were addressed, as it is understood, 
to Grosvenor P. Lowrey, his friend, and formerly his private secretary, 
while he was governor of Kansas ; and so important a bearing had they 
upon the main facts of the case , which are the legality of the Territorial 
legislature and their enactments, that the majority of the committee, 
after they had admitted them as evidence, as it was clearly understood 
by all parties, attempted to reject them. The following is their 
action in regard to them : 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


71 


u The counsel for J. W. Whitfield, having at Leavenworth city 
offered in evidence before the committee two letters written by A. H. 
Reeder—the one dated Washington, Jamrary 20, 1856, the other dated 
Washington, February 12, 1856—and, before offering the said letters, 
their authenticity, both as to the signature and hand-writing in the 
body of said letters, was proved to be the proper hand-writing and 
signature of A. H. Reeder, and of which facts the committee were 
satisfied ; but a majority of the committee—Messrs. Howard and Sher¬ 
man—not being satisfied, at the time, of the propriety of the admission 
of such evidence, took the matter under consideration ; and now, at 
this day, at the sitting of the committee at Westport, the question of 
the admission of said letters as evidence came up for consideration and 
decision, and a majority of the committee, Messrs. Howard and 
Sherman—Mr. Oliver dissenting—decline to receive said letters in 
evidence, and to be engrafted into and to constitute a portion of the 
evidence taken by the committee in their investigations, upon the 
ground that they, the committee, have not the rightful possession of 
them ; they having been found in the street, and being clearly private 
letters, or so declared to be by the majority of the committee. The 
said majority of the committee take no objection to the relevancy or 
oompetency of said letters as evidence ; but place their objection solely 
upon the grounds above stated, not denying that said letters might be 
evidence against said A. H. Reeder in a criminal prosecution. The 
committee admit that the copies of said letters, furnished to the com¬ 
mittee for the purpose of having them transcribed into the evidence, 
are true and genuine copies of the originals offered in evidence, and 
which said copies are hereto appended, marked (A) and (B), and made 
part of this protest. 

“ The counsel for J. W. Whitfield, and on behalf of the law and 
order party in Kansas Territory, offer said letters in evidence for the 
double purpose of showing the opinions and admissions of A. H. 
Reeder, in reference to the matters and subjects connected with the 
elections of the 30th of March, 1855, in the Territory, and the con¬ 
test now pending between Whitfield and Reeder in the House of Rep¬ 
resentatives, as well as to show the complicity of A. H. Reeder in all 
the troubles which have led to bloodshed and civil war in the Terri¬ 
tory. 

“ To the refusal of the majority of said committee to receive said 
tleters in evidence Mr. Oliver enters his protest; and also the said 
John W. Whitfield, by his attorneys, protests against the action of a 
majority of the committee in refusing the admission of said letters in 
evidence, as depriving him of his just rights in the investigation 
before the committee, and in showing to the country the true ground 
and source of all the difficulties in Kansas Territory. 

“J. W. WHITFIELD. 

By his Attorneys , 

“ AUSTIN A. KING, 

“ JOHN SCOTT. 

“ Westport, Mo., Jmie 7, 1856. 

“ The above protest was this day presented, and the accompanying 


72 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


copies of letters, marked by me ‘ Exhibit A, accompanying protest/ 
and ‘Exhibit B, with protest/ 

“WM. A. HOWARD, 

‘‘ Chairman K. C. 

“ Westport, June 7,1856.” 

But the undersigned insists that they were not only competent, but 
pertinent to the main issue which the committee were sent out to in¬ 
vestigate. He therefore incorporates copies of them in this report; 
he appends them to it, and makes them part of the same as fully as 
if here entered at large. 

These remarks, touching the general character of the majority’s 
report, and what has not been proved, are preliminary to such com¬ 
ments as the undersigned intends to submit on the matters which 
were elicited by the investigation. And another fact on the same 
line of preliminary observations, deserving, in his opinion, to be no¬ 
ticed, is, that witnesses were examined by the committee in but three 
places in the Territory, to wit: Lawrence, Tecumseh, and Leaven¬ 
worth city ; except that the testimony of Daniel Woodson, secretary 
of the Territory, was taken informally at Lecompton, in regard to the 
loss of poll-books in certain districts, and also a certain letter said to 
have been written by him. All the places in which witnesses were 
examined touching the election of the 30th of March, 1855, were in 
districts where the elections had been set aside by Governor Reeder 
himself, as before stated. All the testimony they took touching the 
elections at other places, was given by witnesses sent for and exam¬ 
ined out of the vicinage ; and much the larger portion of the testimony 
taken at the instance of the contestant was taken at Lawrence, the 
great rendezvous of the malcontents in the Territory. The object of 
the testimony of the, witnesses produced by Governor Reeder, was to 
show that the election of the legislature on the 30th of March was 
carried by illegal votes from Missouri, notwithstanding he had offi¬ 
cially adjudicated that question as governor of the Territory. 

And before proceeding to notice in detail the testimony, such as it 
is, adduced for that purpose, it may be proper here to advert to some 
strange inconsistencies in the report of the majority, and which are 
apparent upon its face. They say, for instance, “this unlawful in¬ 
terference has been continued in every important event in the history 
of the Territory. Every election has been controlled, not by the actual 
settlers, but by citizens of Missouri; and, as a consequence, every 
officer in the Territory, from constables to legislators, except those 
appointed by the President, owe their positions to non-resident voters. 
None have been elected by the settlers, and your committee have been 
unable to find that any political power whatever, however unimport¬ 
ant, has been exercised by the people of the Territory.” 

This is certainly very broad and sweeping language ; and who, after 
having heard it read, was not surprised to hear the same gentlemen 
admit, in an after part of their report, in speaking of the first elec¬ 
tion for a delegate to Congress, November 29, 1854, and after giving 
all the facts in relation to that election, that General Whitfield was 
duly elected a delegate to Congress? They say, “of the legal votes 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


73 


cast. General Whitfield received a plurality ,” and was consequently duly 
elected. And if he was duly elected by legal votes, as they were forced 
to admit from the evidence, then the result could not have been af¬ 
fected by non-resident voters. 

The undersigned does not deem it necessary for him to say more 
upon the subject of that election, which was the first object of their 
inquiry. 

The majority admit that General Whitfield was duly elected by the 
actual settlers of the Territory, and those who were entitled to vote. 
This admission is a sufficient answer to their previous statement, that 
no person had been elected by the settlers, and that they had been 
unable to find that any political power whatever, however unimport¬ 
ant, had been exercised by the people of the Territory. Like incon¬ 
sistencies appear in their statements concerning the election of mem¬ 
bers of the legislature on the 30th of March, 185'5. 

They say in the first place, in relation to this election, that compa¬ 
nies of nmn from Missouri u were arranged in regular parties, and 
sent into every council district in the Territory , and into every repre¬ 
sentative district hut one. The numbers were so distributed as to con¬ 
trol the elections in each district.” 

And then, under the head of u tenth district,” they say, (i this and 
the c eighth election district' formed one representative district, and 
was the only one in which the invasion from Missouri did not extend.” 
But under the head of u twelfth district,” they say, 11 the election in 
this district was conducted fairly ; no complaint was made that illegal 
votes were cast.” 

And again, under the head of “ seventeenth district,” they say, 
“ the election in this district seems to have been fairly conducted, and 
not contested at all. In this district the pro-slavery party had a ma¬ 
jority.” 

These contradictory statements, to the undersigned, seem wholly 
inexplicable, and he leaves them for the majority to reconcile or ex¬ 
plain as best they may. But the undersigned affirms, that the weight 
of testimony shows that the majority of the legal voters in fourteen 
out of the eighteen election districts in the Territory were in favor of 
the party electing a majority of the legislature, as returned and cer¬ 
tified to by the governor. And the testimony as to the other districts, 
while it is contradictory on some points, is far from being conclusive 
that a like majority did not exist in them. This, moreover, appears 
from the report of the majority itself, without referring to the testi¬ 
mony. 

The Territory was divided into ten council election districts and 
fourteen representative districts. The first council district embraced 
the city of Lawrence—the stronghold of the abolition or free-State 
party, as it is called. In this council district, the whole entire vote 
cast for the free-State ticket was but 255. The whole number of 
legal voters in that district, by the census in February before, was 
446. These figures are taken from the tabular exhibit given by the 
majority themselves. And it is also in proof by Mr. Ladd, one of 
Gov. Feeder's main witnesses, that at least fifty illegal votes were 


74 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


given for the free-State ticket in Lawrence by eastern emigrants just 
arrived, and not entitled to vote. 

These figures and this fact show that the free-State ticket did not 
receive a majority of the legal voters in this district; for if fifty be 
taken from the 255 cast for their ticket, it would leave only 205, being 
61 short of a majority of the 466 legal voters in the district. That 
Missourians may have voted there illegally, does not, and cannot, vary 
this result. But the election at Lawrence was set aside by Gov. Beeder 
for informality in the return. 

The undersigned has compiled tables, comparing the votes cast for 
the free-State ticket in the several council districts and representative 
districts in the Territory. This is taken from the tables exhibited by 
the majority. It is part of their own showing. In it will be seen 
the number of votes cast in each district for the free-State tickets, 
compared with the number of voters at the time the census was taken 
in each respectively; and from this it will appear that the free-State 
votes fell far short of being sufficient to elect a majority in either 
branch of the legislature, even if there had been no increase of voters, 
by bona fide settlers, between the time the census was taken and the 
election. 

But the concurrent testimony of a number of witnesses establishes 
the fact conclusively, in the opinion of the undersigned, that the emi¬ 
gration of bona fide settlers from the southern States was greater in 
the month of March, after the census was taken, than in any equal 
time previous. 

Here are the tables : 



This shows that the aggregate of the votes cast in the Territory for 
the free-State ticket fell short of 800, while the census shows that there 
























KANSAS AFFAIRS 


75 


were 2,905 legal voters in the Territory in the February previous. 
The free-State ticket, therefore, did not receive one-third of the legal 
voters of the Territory, even if all be excluded from the account who 
emigrated to the Territory after the census was taken. 

This fact was apparent to the majority of the committee. But they 
attempted to break its force in two ways : First, by comparing the 
names on the poll-books with those on the census returns, from which 
comparison they argue that only a fraction over 1,300 of the legal 
voters upon the census returns voted at that election. And secondly, 
by arguing that the abolitionists were prevented from voting by vio¬ 
lence, threats, and intimidation. 

On the first point, the undersigned deems it unnecessary to say 
more than that no comparison between the poll-books and the census 
returns was made except by districts. Between the time of taking the 
census and the election, settlers had changed their residence from one 
part of the Territory to another, and doubtless voted in a place differ¬ 
ent from that in which they were registered when the census was taken. 
The committee did not compare the names on the poll-books with the 
names on the census returns throughout the Territory, and the com¬ 
parison alluded to by the majority, therefore, by no means proves what 
they claim for it. 

On the second point the undersigned will barely state that there is 
no evidence that any violence was resorted to, or force employed, by 
which men were prevented from voting at a single election precinct in 
the Territory, or that there was any greater disturbance at any elec¬ 
tion precinct than frequently occurs in all our State elections in ex¬ 
citing times. A number of witnesses on both sides swear that men on 
both sides had arms, guns, pistols, bowie-knives, &c., and made 
threats, &c. But no one of them swears that any one was prevented 
from voting by the use of these weapons in a single instance, to the 
best of the undersigned’s recollection. The testimony from beginning 
to end does not disclose the fact of a single assault and battery at or 
about the polls, or on account of the side on which any one wished to 
vote or had voted, in the whole Territory, on the day of election. 
Some quarrels and fights occurred at two or three places, but not about 
voting, and not as many in the whole Territory as the undersigned is 
informed occurred at one precinct in this city at the late municipal 
election. 

The undersigned will now take up and proceed with the districts in 
their order. He now refers to the election districts. There were 
eighteen of these. 


First Election District. 

The testimony in this district shows that a great many strangers 
were present, some with wagons and tents ; that considerable excite¬ 
ment prevailed. But there is no positive evidence of but a very few 
persons, known at that time to be citizens of Missouri, being present. 
All else is hearsay, vague and uncertain. While this is so, Mr. Sal- 
ster, in his deposition hereunto appended and made part of this report, 
testifies as follows: 


76 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


“ I emigrated into the Territory of Kansas in June, 1854, and set¬ 
tled in the neighborhood of Lawrence, and have resided there ever 
since.’ ’ 

“My acquaintance was reasonably extensive in that district, I 
knew about 400 voters who resided in the district, hut I did not know 
near all of the resident voters of that district. So far as I know, all 
the resident voters of that district were present and voted.” 

“At the time of the election of the 30tli March, 1855, there was a 
majority of pro-slavery residents in the Lawrence district. I was well 
acquainted in the district. There were about 200 free-State resident 
voters in that district, and there were from 300 to 400 pro-slavery 
voters at the polls that day, whom I knew to he residents of that dis¬ 
trict, and a great many of them voted in my presence, and the others 
told me they had voted.” 

Besides this, the testimony of other witnesses shows that a large im¬ 
migration of bona fide settlers from Missouri came into the district 
after the census was taken, and before the election. (1) The parties, 
says one witness, were pretty nearly divided—perhaps more of the 
free-State than pro-slavery party; but the free-State party were di¬ 
vided, and many voted for the pro-slavery candidates. (2) There was 
no intimidation or force used to prevent any of the free-State party 
from voting, and all could have voted who wished to vote. (3) In the 
afternoon some one hundred men, who had come in with Dr. Charles 
Robinson from the east, marched over to the polls and voted the free- 
State ticket. (4) They were said to have come into the Territory that 
very day.(5) 

From this testimony, it is difficult for the undersigned to see how 
the majority of the committee could come to the conclusion to which 
they arrived, that even in the Lawrence district there was a majority 
of the legal voters for the free-State ticket. 

Second District. 

In regard to this district, the testimony is conflicting and contra¬ 
dictory ; but the weight of the evidence, in the opinion of the under¬ 
signed, shows that there were many settlers came into this district 
after the census was taken, and before the March election. On the 
morning of election the free-State judges took arms with them into 
the judges’ room. The free-State men, under the lead of Judge 
Wakefield, took possession of the polls, and required all the pro¬ 
slavery men to be sworn without discrimination, and did not swear any 
free-State men. The pro-slavery residents objected to this, and de¬ 
clared that both parties ought to be sworn alike. After some time 
the free-State judges resigned, and other judges were selected by the 
crowd. No intimidation was used to prevent the free-State men from 
voting, but all were asked to come up and vote. The pro-slavery 


(1.) Horatio Owens, James Whitlock, A. B. Wade. 
(2.) James Whitlock, A. E. Wade. 

(3.) Horatio Owens, J. Whitlock, A. B. Wade. 

(4.( J. Whitlock, A. B. Wade, J. M. Banks. 

(5.) James Whitlock, JohnM. Banks. 



KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


77 


ticket had a majority in the district, as the free-State party were not 
united on their ticket. (6) In addition to the general testimony re¬ 
lating to this district, the undersigned begs to call the attention of 
the House especially to the testimony of Parris Ellison, one of the 
judges to hold said election, appointed by Governor Reeder himself, 
which deposition, with others in relation to the election in that dis- 
trict7 is hereunto appended and made part of this report. Mr. Elli¬ 
son, in his deposition, among other things, says : 

“The undersigned, Parris Ellison, states on oath: That I em¬ 
igrated from Missouri to Kansas, and settled at Douglas, the 
second district, in October, 1854, and have resided there ever since. 
I was present at the election held at Mr. Burson’s, in the second dis¬ 
trict, on the 30th March, 1855. I was appointed by Governor Reeder 
as one of the judges, and Mr. Burson and Mr. Ramsay, I think, were 
the other two. We met at Mr. Burson’s house in the morning be¬ 
fore the hour to open the polls. Mr. Burson was a magistrate, ap¬ 
pointed by Governor Reeder, and he qualified me and qualified 
Ramsay. Ramsay qualified Burson. We appointed the clerks, and 
qualified them. George W. Taylor was one of the clerks. My son 
Parris was very sick at the time, and I wanted to resign. I proposed 
to resign if the other judges would permit me to name a man to serve 
in my place. Judge Wakefield, one of the candidates on the free- 
State ticket, was in the room, and interfered, telling the judges that 
they had power to name the man. They refused to let me appoint a 
man in my place, and I determined to serve, and did serve. I re¬ 
marked to the other judges that we were sworn to act impartially 
during the whole day. They said, Yes ; we are sworn to act impar¬ 
tially. We agreed that, inasmuch as they knew a great many voters 
that I did not know, and I knew a great many that they did not 
know, that those whom I knew should vote without swearing, and 
those whom they knew I would not require of them to he sworn. Under 
this agreement we commenced the election. After some twenty-nine 
or thirty votes were taken, the pro-slavery party had some two to 
one against the free-State party. The other two judges began to grum- 
hje. Dr. Brooks came up to vote. I knew Dr. Brooks had a claim 
in that district, and had been on it, and had put a house on it. 

“ Dr. Brooks was a single man, and afterwards brought his mother 
there, and has resided there ever since. At the time of the election Dr. 
Brooks claimed to be a citizen of the district. I knew him to be a 
resident, and under our agreement I wanted to take his vote without 
swearing, but the other two judges refused to take his vote unless he 
would swear; this he refused to do, because he said that he had 
understood that, under the agreement, if Mr. Ellison took his vote 
without requiring him to swear, that was all that was necessary. 
The other two judges still refused to take his vote. The doctor 
stood at the window a long time, and said, that unless they would let 
him vote, as he was a citizen of the district, and had been for some 
time previous, no other man should vote there that day. I told them 
that if they refused his vote it would create a fuss and confusion, and 


(6.) George W. Ward. 



78 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


that it would he violating the agreement made before the election be¬ 
gan ; but still refused. Sherman Woffal then came up to vote ; but 
they refused to take his vote without swearing. Sherman said that 
he could prove by me that he was a citizen of the district, and had 
been a citizen of the district from the fall before. I knew that Mr. 
Woffal was a resident of the district, for he was living there when I 
went to the district to live. I bought hay of Mr. Woffal before the 
election, which he had made and cured the summer before. They 
still refused to let him vote, unless he would swear. He refused to 
swear because they, the judges, would not let him prove his residence. 
He said he would not swear. I had not, up to this time, objected to 
any of the persons that came up to vote which the other two judges 
said they knew. I had kept the agreement made between us to the 
word and letter. On account of this conduct on the part of the other 
two judges, a fuss and confusion arose in the crowd outside of the house. 
While the fuss was going on, I proposed to adjourn, as I told them I 
thought it would be over in half an hour or so. Mr. Burson, there¬ 
upon, adjourned for half an hour. He proclaimed the adjournment 
aloud. I told each one of the judges to pick up a poll-book. I took 
the ballot-box, which one of the judges tried to take from me. I 
think it was Ramsay, but am not certain. Sharp words passed be¬ 
tween us, but I kept the ballot-box, and they took the poll-books and 
went off. A man by the name of Jones asked me where the polL 
books were? I told him that Burson and Ramsay had taken them 
off. He followed them, and brought the poll-books back. I waited 
until the half hour had expired, and the other two judges did not 
come back. I waited ten minutes longer. I called them ; but they 
did not come. I called them again, and they did not appear. I tola 
the people that I would wait five or ten minutes longer, and if 
other two judges did not come they would have a right to select t#o 
men to act in their places. I waited ten minutes and they did not 
come, and the people elected two men to act in their places, namely, 
Sherman Woffal and Frank Labay. They were qualified. I asked 
Mr. Taylor to repeat the oath to them, which he did ; but, by mis¬ 
take, Mr. Taylor signed the oath instead of myself. Mr. Taylor had 
been sworn in as a clerk by Mr. Burson and Mr. Ramsay. Messrs. 
Woffal and Labay and I then opened the polls, and the election 
went off quietly during the remainder of the day. We kept the 
polls open until 6 o’clock in the evening. Andrew McDonald was 
the pro-slavery candidate for couucil, and Judge Wakefield was the 
free-State candidate for council. 0. H. Brown and Mr. Ward were 
the pro-slavery candidates for the house of representatives, and Jesse 
was one of the free-State candidates for the house, and the other 
I do not remember. All the votes received after we began the 
{second time were for the pro-slavery candidates. The ballot-box 
which I took possession of at the time of the adjournment I care¬ 
fully preserved, and did not open it until 6 o’clock in the evening. 
It was then opened in presence of the other two judges, who had 
been selected by the people, and the clerks. The ballots were count¬ 
ed, and there were twenty-one votes for the pro-slavery ticket, and 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 7d 

twelve votes for the free-State ticket. When we commenced tne 
election the second time, we got another ballot-box. 

“ When I got there in the morning, there were some thirty or forty 
men present about the house, and when I went into the house I saw 
some fifteen or twenty guns standing in one corner of the house, 
which had been brought there by the free-State men. When the 
adjournment took place, the guns were taken away by the free-State 
men. These guns were all the guns that I saw on the ground. I 
did not see a gun in the hands of a pro-slavery man that day. There 
was no charge made with either guns or pistols or other weapons at 
the window, nor were there any threats of violence made by the pro¬ 
slavery men. There was no violence committed by the pro-slavery 
men there that day to the judges, nor were there any threats of 
violence offered, as I saw. I did not see Mr. Samuel Jones pull out 
his watch and say to the judges, Ramsay and Burson, that he would 
give them five minutes to resign, nor did I hear him afterwards say 
to them that he would give them one minute to resign. If this had 
occurred, I should have seen and heard it, for I was in the house all 
the time, and was at the door when these two judges came out. I 
did not see Samuel Jones in the house at any time while Ramsay and 
Burson were there. In my neighborhood I was well acquainted with 
the settlers there, and at the time of the election and before. The 
residents were almost all pro-slavery. From what I knew myself, 
and the information received from the census taker and others, I am 
satisfied that the pro-slavery party had a decided majority in the 
second district.’’ 

This is the district in which it is represented that sheriff Jones 
figured so conspicuously. The testimony of Mr. Ellison clearly dis¬ 
proves all such allegations. Other depositions, herewith filed and 
made part of this report, fully confirm the testimony of Mr. Ellison. 

Third District. 

The testimony in relation to this district is, that the pro-slavery 
uarty had a majority among the actual settlers of the district.(7) 

Fourth District. 

The testimony in relation to this district shows that the pro-slavery 
party had a majority among the actual settlers.(8) 

Fifth District. 

In this district the testimony goes to show that there was a major¬ 
ity for the free-State party. 

Sixth District. 

The testimony goes to show that the pro-slavery party had a major- 


(7.) Geo. Holmes. 

A. S. Johnson, T. Mockbee. 




80 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


ity of the actual settlers in this district, and also that most of the free- 
State men voted for the pro-slavery candidates. (9) 

Seventh Distrct. 

The testimony shows that the pro-slavery party had a majority 
arnon^ the actual settlers in this district. (10) 

Eighth District. 

As to this district, no testimony was taken on either side, so far 
as the undersigned now remembers. 

Ninth District. 

The testimony shows that in this district the pro-slavery party 
were in the majority among the actual settlers.(11) 

Tenth District. 

The testimony shows that the election was conducted fairly in this 
district, and the result would not have heen changed by the rejection 
of all i>(‘ illegal votes on both sides. 

Eleventh District. 

In this district there is no evidence to impeach the correctness of the 
election returns as made to and sanctioned by the governor. 

Twelfth District. 

There is no evidence to impeach the correctness of the returns of 
election for this district. 


Thirteenth District. 

The evidence shows that there was a pro-slavery majority of the 
actual residents in this district, and that there was no force or intimi¬ 
dation used to prevent free-State men from voting. (12) 

Fourteenth District. 

The evidence shows that the pro-slavery party was largely in the 
majority among the actual residents in this district; that the election 
was peaceable and quiet, and that no intimidation was used to pre¬ 
vent any one from voting. (13) 


(9) Wm. Barbee, Joseph C. Anderson, S. A. Williams, T. B. Arnett. 

(10) C. A. Linkenauger, Andrew Johnson. 

(11) C. R. Mobley, Thomas Reynolds. 

4 (12) Wm. Tebbs, 0. H. Tebbs, and others. 

(13) W. P. Richardson, Willard P. Hall, J. H. Whitehead, J. P. Blair, and others. 




KANSAS AFFAIRS 


81 


Fifteenth District. 

The evidence in regard to this district shows that the pro-slaver 
party were largely in the majority among the actual residents—prob¬ 
ably ten to one—and that there was no force or intimidation used to 
prevent any man from voting. (14) 

Sixteenth District. 

The evidence show’s that the election in this district was conducted 
peaceably and quietly, and no intimidation or force used to prevent 
any one from voting. There was a decided pro-slavery majority 
among the actual settlers in this district.(15) 

Seventeenth District. 

The evidence shows that in this district the election was conducted 
peaceably and quietly, and that the pro-slavery party were in the 
majority among the actual settlers. (16) 

Eighteenth District. 

The evidence shows that the election was conducted peaceably and 
quietly, and that there was a decided pro-slavery majority among the 
actual settlers in this district. (17) 

Upon an examination of the testimony taken before the committee, 
what the undersigned has affirmed in relation to these several districts 
will be found to be sustained by the proof. And from all the testi¬ 
mony collected, when compared and weighed properly, the under¬ 
signed feels confident that it will appear to every unprejudiced mind, 
not only that General Whitfield was duly elected, by the actual 
and bona fide residents, a delegate to Congress at the first election, 
in November, 1854, but that the free-State party was in the minority 
in the Territory at the March election in 1855, for members of the 
legislature; and that that election was not carried either by force, 
violence, or non-residents, but that a majority of the legislature was 
duly elected as certified to by the governor, and was properly consti¬ 
tuted as a law-making body ; and, as a consequence, that the laws 
passed by them, as far as they are consistent with the constitution 
of the United States and the organic act of the Territory, are valid ; 
and, as a further consequence, that the sitting delegate, having been 
duly elected a delegate to Congress under a Territorial law thus 
passed, is entitled to a seat on this floor as such. 

And having gone through this branch of the subject, the under¬ 
signed now beg leave to refer to other matters alluded to by the ma¬ 
jority of the committee in their report. They speak of a certain secret 
political society formed in the State of Missouri, known by different 


(14) John W. Martin, N. Williams. 

(15) W. Gr. Matthias, L. J. Eastin, R. R. Rees, Amos Rees, A. T. Pattie, J H. Day, A 
MoAuley, and others. 

(16) Cyprian Chouteau, Rev. T. Johnson. 

(17) R. L. Kirk, J. W. Foreman. 

H. Rep. 200--6 




82 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


names, such as “Social Band/' “Friends' Society/' “Blue Lodge/' 
“Sons of the South”—the object of which was to send emigrants into 
Kansas for the purpose of making it a slave State. 

In reply to this part of their report it is only necessary to state 
that the evidence shows that these organizations were formed for the 
purpose of counteracting similar and other organizations, first started 
at the east and elsewhere, for the purpose of colonizing the Territory 
with persons for the avowed object of making Kansas a free State, 
and in this way ultimately affecting injuriously the institutions of 
Missouri. 

The first society of this kind was formed in the city of Washington, 
immediately after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. It was 
composed of members of Congress of both branches, and others. 

The undersigned refers, in this connexion, to the testimony of the 
Hon. Daniel Mace, a member from Indiana, which is appended to 
this report and made part thereof. In his deposition he states that 
such an association was formed in Washington immediately after the 
passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act. It was called the Kansas Aid 
Society, the members of which subscribed various sums of money, he 
himself subscribing $50 or $100, he is not certain which amount. The 
object of the movement was to induce persons to go to Kansas who 
would make that their home, and who would at all elections vote 
against the institution of slavery. Mr. Goodrich, a member of the 
House of Representatives from Massachusetts, was the president of the 
society. 

Soon after this society was formed, other societies were formed in 
the eastern States for the same object; that is, for the purpose of send¬ 
ing persons to Kansas to control the elections there. A society of this 
kind formed in Boston, Massachusetts, commenced sending emigrants 
to Kansas for this avowed object. To show the object of this last- 
named Emigrant Aid Company, the undersigned begs leave to refer to 
a letter written by Thomas H. Webb, corresponding secretary of the 
company, and which is among the testimony taken by the committee. 
It is as follows : 


Boston, August 14, 1854, 

Dear Sir : By the pamphlet mailed you, much of tfie informatiou 
which you desire can be obtained. 

The next party will leave here on the 29th inst., at quarter past 
2 p. m. ; they will go via Buffalo, Detroit, Chicago, Alton, and St. 
Louis, and will disembark at Kansas City, near the mouth of Kansas 
river. The fare through will be about $25 for first-class accommoda¬ 
tions; meals extra, which need not cost, on an average, more than 
twenty cents. Each person is allowed 100 pounds of baggage, and for 
all excess will be liable to pay about $3 per 100. Children under 
three years will be taken free; between three and twelve, pay half- 
price. No pledges are required from those who go ; but as our prin¬ 
ciples are known, we trust those who differ from us will be honest 
enough to take some other route. 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 83 

The agent who located our pioneer party will accompany the next 
one, and furnish all requisite information. 

Yours, respectfully, 

THOMAS H. WEBB, 

Sec. Em. Aid. 

A. Jennings, Provincetoion, Mass. 

The undersigned also refers to a pamphlet admitted in evidence be¬ 
fore the committee, from which he submits the following extracts: 

“ The Pioneer Party. —Charles Id. Branscomb, esq., one of the com¬ 
pany’s agents, went up with the pioneer party, and located them on a 
beautiful tract of land previously selected by him as an advantageous 
position for a town-site. This spot is situated six miles above the 
Wakarusa, a tributary of the Kansas river, and about thirty-five miles 
above the mouth of the latter stream, on its south side. For a brief 
description, the reader is referred to the paragraph commencing on 
page eleven, and continued on page twelve, of this pamphlet. 

“ Mr. B. travelled in various sections of the Territory, and says it is 
impossible for one who has not been in that region to conceive of its 
beauty and fertility ; he confirms all the statements that have been 
made respecting it in our pamphlet. 

“ The second party left this city on Tuesday, the 29th of August. 
They reached Kansas City September 6th, and entered the Territory 
under the guidance of Charles Robinson and S. L. Pomeroy, agents of 
the company. They were cordially received by the pioneer party, 
and have made a joint settlement at the beautiful site selected by Mr. 
Branscomb. 

“ The third party, under the guidance of Mr. Branscomb, (who has 
returned twice from Kansas since July,) left Boston September 26th. 
It numbered eightj^-six persons, to which accessions were made at 
Worcester, Rochester, and elsewhere westward. Messrs. Pomeroy 
and Robinson are making great exertions to accommodate the parties 
for the winter, and to provide the materials for the erection of houses 
in the spring. This pressure of business involves a large expenditure, 
which their experience will enable them to make with prudence and 
discretion. But their drafts cannot he met with the funds in the 
hands of the trustees, unless ‘ material aid ’ furnished by those who 
wish for success to the enterprise shall he very much greater than it 
has been thus far. 

“ The fourth party left this city the 17th of October. It numbered 
123 individuals, to which sixty were added at Worcester, a number at 
Springfield, Albany, Rochester, and Buffalo. At Chicago a large ac¬ 
cession was anticipated, and ere leaving St. Louis the number will 

exceed 250.” . 

This was all in the summer and fall of 1854, and prior to the first 
election for a delegate to Congress, in November of that year. 
Whatever organizations, therefore, were formed in Missouri, of the 
character alluded to by the majority of the committee, were formed 
solely and expressly for the purpose of counteracting those organiza¬ 
tions previously formed elsewhere. This the testimony abundantly 
proves. 


84 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


The testimony also shows that emigrants going out under those 
and similar organizations were supplied with arms and munitions of 
war. Great numbers of Sharpe’s rifles and several pieces of artillery 
were sent to the Territory. And if arms were taken by emigrants 
from Missouri, it was only for the purpose of defence against arms 
in the hands of emigrants from other quarters. 

The testimony shows that large numbers of persons sent out by 
these eastern societies went into the Territory during the month of 
March, just before the election, declaring it to he their intention to 
vote ; that they came there for that purpose; and in a few days after 
the election, great numbers of these persons were seen returning to 
the north and east, saying, many of them, that they had voted.* The 
testimony also shows that a large number of Missourians went over 
to the Territory on the day of election, merely to prevent illegal 
voting on the part of these eastern emigrants, and few of these 
Missourians, and only a few, are proven to have voted, and their 
names given, by the testimony ; not as many in all as those of the 
eastern emigrants, who it is proven voted illegally at Lawrence. 

The majority of your committee in their report say, that the only 
cause of the hostilities in the Territory was the known desire of the 
citizens of Lawrence to make Kansas a free State, and their repug¬ 
nance to laws imposed upon them by non-residents. 

The undersigned, however, is unable to concur with them in that 
allegation. On the contrary, he afflrms, what he believes to be the 
truth of the matter, that the cause of all the difficulties in the Terri¬ 
tory of Kansas, from its organization down to the present time, is to 
to be found, first, as before stated, in the various organizations of 
members of Congress, and in the northern and eastern States, with 
the avowed purpose of colonizing the Territory with persons of anti¬ 
slavery sentiments, to the end of making Kansas a free State; 
secondly, that finding themselves defeated and thwarted in their pur¬ 
pose of electing a legislature in favor of making Kansas a free State, 
as shown in a former part of this report, being chagrined and morti¬ 
fied, they, the anti-slavery party in the Territory of Kansas, in a fit 
of desperation, determined to set themselves up in opposition to, and 
in resistance of, the laws passed by the Kansas legislature, and to 
resist them to a “bloody issue,” if necessary to their defeat and utter 
subversion. Indeed, the undersigned affirms, that even before the 
legislature convened, there were propositions made to form an organi¬ 
zation of a military character, to resist any and all laws which might 
be enacted by that legislature, by force of arms, even should such 
resistance result in the subversion of the government of the Terri¬ 
tory, and to the peril of the Union itsSlf. 

In proof of this allegation, the undersigned begs leave to refer to 
the testimony of Dr. J. N. 0. P. Wood, which is as follows: 

“ I came into the Territory first about the 1st of April, 1854 ; I 
located permanently in Lawrence about the 7th of October, 1854 ; I 
resided there until some time the last of March, or the 1st of April 
last, and then I went to Lecompton. About the time 1 came there, 


tt F. M. Mahan, H. M. Blossom, and others. 



KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


85 


there was considerable difficulty between wbat was called the Law¬ 
rence Association, of which Dr. Robinson was president, and the set¬ 
tlers that were not members of this association. The members of the 
association held a meeting two or three evenings after I got there, and 
elected a judge, and a Mr. Grover marshal, and organized a compa¬ 
ny, which I think they called the ‘ shot-gun battalion/ for the pur¬ 
pose of preventing persons that did not belong to their association 
from settling about the place, and taking timber and stone from the 
claims of those who did live there. They said there was no law in 
the Territory ; that the organic act was unconstitutional—made so by 
the repeal of the Missouri compromise ; and that they intended to form 
an association, and make and enforce their own laws, irrespective of 
the laws of Congress, until there could be a change in Congress, by 
which the Missouri compromise could be restored, and the organic act 
set aside. 

u There was no open opposition to the execution of the laws until 
Governor Reeder appointed justices of the peace, and one or two mem¬ 
bers of this association were arrested. They refused to recognise the 
power ot the justice of the peace, and refused to attend as witnesses, 
and would only attend their own provisional court, as they termed it. 

i( When the legislature was about to be elected, they held a meet¬ 
ing, and brought out their candidates. After the legislature was 
elected, and before they met, there were several meetings held in 
Lawrence, and at those meetings they passed resolutions declaring 
they would submit to no laws passed by that legislature. This was what 
was called the Lawrence association, different from the town associa¬ 
tion. It was composed of men sent out under the auspices of the 
Emigrant Aid society, and Dr. Robinson was at the head of the asso¬ 
ciation. Many belonging to this association lived in different parts 
of the Territory. They were allowed to vote at the meetings of the 
association, which I sometimes attended, and those who were not 
enrolled as members of the association were not allowed to vote or 
debate at their meetings. Some of them lived at Ossawatomie, To¬ 
peka, Manhattan, and other places in the Territory. They resolved 
not to obey the laws that would be passed by the legislature, and only 
obey their own provisional laws until they could form a provisional 
government for the Territory. 

“ The first general meeting, while the legislature was in session, 
was held in Lawrence in July or August, 1855. Before that time 
their meetings had been of the association ; but this was the first gen¬ 
eral meeting. That was the first meeting at which I recollect hear¬ 
ing Colonel Lane take ground in opposition to the laws that the legis¬ 
lature, then in session, should pass. All the public speakers that I 
heard there, said they did not intend to obey the laws that should be 
passed, but intended to form a provisional government for themselves. 
After the legislature adjourned, the first meeting at which I heard 
any declarations with regard to the resistance of the laws was held 
at Blanton’s bridge. Col. Lane, Mr. Emery, and Mr.. John Hutchin¬ 
son addressed the meeting, urging the people to resist the laws, let 
the consequences be what they might. 

“ In private conversation with those men, they always expressed 


86 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


their determination to resist the laws, and said the officers and posse 
should not enforce the laws. They said they had a new code of laws 
called Sharpe’s Revised Statutes, and they were going to use them in 
preference to any others. It was a common remark, that they would 
use Sharpe’s revised statutes in preference to any others.. 

“ I think the first box of rifles came there marked Revised Statutes. 
I think after Mr. Dietzler came hack he said he brought the rifles 
with him. When they were brought to Lawrence they wanted to put 
them in my warehouse. They were lying at my door, and I inquired 
what they were, and Mr. Salter, who was keeping the warehouse for 
me, said they were emigrant aid guns. I objected to their being put 
in my warehouse, and they were taken and put in Mr. Simpson’s 
office. I told them I would not he the first to harbor guns brought 
there for revolution. 

“I often expostulated with Lane, Robinson, and others, both pub¬ 
licly and privately, as to their course, and addressed the meeting at 
Blanton’s bridge in opposition to their course. They said they would 
resist the laws regardless of consequences. 

“ The next public meeting I recollect of was the Big Springs con¬ 
vention. At that convention I had but little conversation, except 
with Governor Reeder and Judge Johnson. Prior to the meeting 
several days, Governor Reeder came up to our place. I heard that 
he was urging the people to resist the laws, and do so by setting a 
different day for the election of delegate to Congress, on which he 
should he voted for. I called on him at his room, and asked him if 
he had recommended that course, and he said that he had intended 
to have returned to Pennsylvania, but upon reflection he had con¬ 
cluded that if they would take that course at the convention, he 
would be a candidate for Congress, and had returned from Kansas 
City, where he had taken his trunks and baggage. He said he had 
understood since he came there that Lane, Roberts, and others, Tfould 
be candidates before the convention ; but if they would withdraw, 
and the course he had indicated was taken, he would be a candidate 
for Congress. He said it would give him an opportunity to bring 
the matter before Congress, and with the majority they had then in 
Congress against the democratic party he thought he could succeed 
in ousting General Whitfield if elected. 

u A meeting was held in Lawrence, and it was agreed upon that 
a different day should be fixed upon for the election ; and the candi¬ 
dates who were there—Robinson, Lane, and some others—agreed to 
withdraw in favor of Governor Reeder. This was four or five days 
before the Big Springs convention. 

“ I rode up to that convention in company with General Pomeroy, 
who invited me to go up with him. At the convention I had another 
conversation with Governor Reeder. We had always been on the 
most intimate terms, and I talked with him as I would with any 
friend. I talked with him, and said that I thought that by taking 
that course, and thereby repudiating the laws, it would bring a state 
of anarchy upon the Territory that he nor I would probably live to 
see the end of. I said it would be opening the door and giving an 
invitation to outlaws outside of the Territory,to come and make that 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


87 


the field of operations ; that it would bring about a state of things 
that would he injurious to the country, by preventing capitalists from 
risking their means in such a country. 

“ He replied that he thought differently ; that they had determined 
to adopt the platform of the Topeka convention, held before that time, 
recommending the formation of a provisional government. I think 
he took a pencil and draughted a resolution recommending the calling 
of a convention to form a State constitution. He said he would offer 
that resolution ; they could go on and form their State constitution, 
appoint an executive committee to issue a proclamation calling for 
the election of delegates to form a free-State constitution, and they 
would elect their members to the legislature, pass their laws ; and if 
Congress did not admit them, they would pass their own laws, and 
go on independently of Congress, until such time as tfhey could he 
admitted. 

“I remarked, that would bring them immediately in conflict with the 
acts of the Territorial legislature, one or the other of which must 
become supreme ; and I thought it would necessarily bring on a colli¬ 
sion between the two opposing parties, and involve the country in an 
armed difficulty. 

u He replied, that they had made up their minds to resist the laws, 
and by forming a free-State constitution they could get the aid and 
sympathy of the NoHh to help them enforce their provisional laws ; 
that they were determined to resist the Territorial laws. That was 
about the substance of the conversation. 

“ In his speech before the convention, he urged them to resist 
the Territorial laws at all hazards. I have read the speech of Gov. 
Reeder as reported in the proceedings of the Big Springs convention, 
in a printed copy now before me. I cannot say that it contains all 
his speech. He spoke for an hour, or a little over an hour. I under¬ 
stood him distinctly to say this: that he wanted them, if they had 
any regard for their rights, not to appeal to the laws for redress, nor 
answer others if appealed to. He called them ‘bogus’ laws, meaning 
thereby the Territorial laws. That, I think, is about the substance of 
what he said. 

“I came down home, I believe, in company with Judge Johnson, 
who disapproved of the course adopted. I had conversations with 
Governor Reeder afterwards, hut we held our respective positions. . 

“A proclamation was issued by what was called the Executive 
Committee, calling an election for State officers and legislature, a con¬ 
vention to form a State constitution having met and formed a State 
constitution. I talked with Lane and Robinson often about this matter. 
There were free-State men in Lawrence who opposed this course, and 
oppose it yet. I myself co-operated with the free-State party, until 
they took these revolutionary steps, and then I left them. 

“I lived in Illinois twelve years before I came to this Territory.” 

Indeed the undersigned affirmed, upon the testimony, that either 
before the meeting of the legislature, .or during its session, or after its 
adjournment, there were other organizations formed, to resist by force 
of arms the execution of any laws the legislature might pass, or any 
which they had passed, al all hazards, even to the destruction of the 


88 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


Territorial government, and the dismemberment of the confederacy 
itself. In proof of this assertion the undersigned begs leave to refer 
to the testimony of Pat. Laughlin, and the testimony of Dr. Andrew 
J. Francis. 

Pat. Laughlin testifies, in substance, that he came to Kansas from 
the State of Kentucky, in May, 1855. He settled in Doniphan, and 
favored the free-soil sentiment. He became a free-soiler about the 
middle of August, 1855, and had a meeting of that party on the 25th 
of the same month; at which meeting S. Collins presided. 

The meeting—although it was one intended for all of the four¬ 
teenth election district, as designated by Gov. Feeder, in his official 
proclamation governing the spring election of 1855—had but about 
forty members in it, and tha't, too, in a district far more thickly pop¬ 
ulated than Aiy other district in the Territory of Kansas. 

This meeting was addressed by A. Lazelere, Dr. G. A. Cutler, C. 
W. Stewart, B. Harding, and others, all of whom urged very strongly 
on the meeting the necessity of forming a society something on the 
order of the u Know-nothings,” by which th^y could unite their small 
party, and labor more effectually against the pro-slavery party. This 
idea was received with general acclamation by every member of the 
meeting but himself. He thought this a good sign of their u Know- 
nothing’’ origin. He therefore opposed the manoeuvres they were 
making; told them if they went into such measures, they would find 
in him an unrelenting enemy. They, sooner than cause any disturb¬ 
ance in their yet feeble ranks, gave up all thoughts of such organiza¬ 
tions. The meeting then went on; and, after disposing of all busi¬ 
ness before it, we had speeches from several of the leading men—S. 
Collins, Dr. G. A. Cutler, C. W. Stewart, John Fee, A. Lazelere, 
B. Harding, B. G. Cady, and others—many of whom strongly urged 
that the people ought to rise in arms, and with their might resist the 
authorities; and sooner than permit slavery in Kansas, or even to 
submit to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, to go with all 
their might for a disunion of the States ; and, in order to effect their 
purpose, shed, if necessary, the last drop of their blood. Those 
speeches were received with acclamation by the poor deluded listeners. 
He was appointed at this meeting, together with several others, to 
represent the people of this (14th) district at the Big Springs conven¬ 
tion, to be held on the 5th of September. IS ext day several of the 
delegates met, and solicited him to go before the rest several days, 
that he might find out what our party was doing in other parts of the 
Territory. He started for Lawrence on the 27th of August, and after 
riding as far as Ocena, in Atchison county, he stopped at the house 
of Mr. Crosby, and made himself known to him. He then made him 
acquainted with the secret military organization, which organization 
had been on foot from the 4th of April, 1855. (There was another 
society previous to this.) Mr. Crosby then gave him a letter of intro¬ 
duction to G. W. Brown, of the Herald of Freedom. 

He went to Lawrence, and after acquainting Brown with his busi¬ 
ness, and giving him the letter of Mr. Crosby, he showed him a great 
number of Sharpe’s rifles—he supposed about 75 or 100—and told him 
they were sent to them by the Emigrant Aid Society, of Boston; that 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


89 


this society had also sent, and would continue to send, men and means 
to make Kansas a free State hy force, if necessary. He told him that 
the arms and munitions of war were sent generally as dry goods or 
hooks to the agent of the society; and were sent concealed in this 
manner, that they might not he detected hy the United States offi¬ 
cers. He told him that when our regiment would number thirty 
men, we could send a delegate to Boston ; hut that he must first visit 
Lawrence, where he would get letters of introduction to the society in 
Boston, who would furnish us with as many rifles as we had men to 
hear them in the neighborhood; and, furthermore, that he would get 
them gratis. 

While in Lawrence, a box of goods came, directed to C. Kobinson; 
it was taken into the room where they hold their secret meetings. A 
friend ot his invited him to go up with him to see the ftind of goods 
they received from the East. He went up, and, to his surprise, saw 
in the box a lot of bluejackets and white pants for military uniform; 
also a drum and drum-sticks. 

The lookers-on winked with their eyes, as though they meant some¬ 
thing. There was a large house, which answered the double purpose 
of a hotel and fort, and with which the public is very familiar; it was 
then in the course of erection by the Emigrant Aid Society of Boston; 
it had port-holes in it for guns. He was told hy Mr. Brown, Mr. 
Conway, Hutchison, and Lowry, and many other leading men among 
the abolitionists, that this hotel was intended principally for a fortifi¬ 
cation for their town, for they expected their conduct would bring 
them, before long, into a collision with the authorities. 

A. H. Beeder seemed very well acquainted with the secret military 
order. Immediately after he told his business to Mr. Brown, and let 
him know he was a member of the secret order, he had an introduc¬ 
tion to A. H. Reeder. They both then got up and went into the 
back room, where the rifles were, about twenty-five feet from him, 
and stood in a position on the floor where he had a full view of them. 
He could see from their actions, and from part of their conversation, 
which he overheard, that he and the society were the principal topics 
of their conversation. When they finished their interview a preacher 
came in, and he was introduced as late of Boston. The three then 
began a conversation, in which the topic was, what men and means 
they could get by the next election, which was to come off in the fall, 
for delegate to Congress. They spoke of a preacher who had gone to 
Boston for the express purpose of getting voters and other means to 
insure success at the coming election. 

Pursuant to public notice, the convention of the abolitionists met 
at Big Springs, on tne 5th of September, 1855 ; also the executive 
committee. This committee claimed the sole right to govern the 
Territory. He was introduced to this convention by A. H. Reeder. 
His manner of introducing him was very strange, and he was made a 
member without being proposed in his hearing. Shortly after he was 
introduced to the committee a man whose name, he thought, was 
McCullough, and whose accent and outward demeanor bespoke him to 
he from the eastern States, offered the following resolution: 

“ Resolved, That every reliable free-State man in the Territory be 


90 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


furnished with a rifle, a brace of pistols, and a sabre, gratis ; and that 
he be required to take an oath to come when called upon, and muster 
into service under his superior officer, and to sacrifice his life, if 
necessary, to rescue the person and property of any person who would 
be brought under the jurisdiction of the present laws of the Territory.” 

The above resolution was seconded, and received by loud stampings 
in every part of the house, except the chairman, (C. Robinson,) who 
remained silent a few moments, as though lost in deep thought. He 
at last spoke up, and asked the gentleman to withdraw his motion,, 
and they would act upon it in a more private manner. All seemed 
silent and seemed to wonder at the chairman’s course. Another spoke 
up, and said he thought the resolution interfered with provisions al¬ 
ready made. 

The chairman said he thought not; but, for reasons he cared not 
to give at present, he wished the gentleman to withdraw his re¬ 
solution, and let them act upon it in a more private manner. It 
was then withdrawn. This committee, in assuming the government 
of the Territory, appointed two governing committees of three men 
each side of the Kansas river, whose duty it was to establish post 
offices, mail routes, and mail carriers, to carry and take care of all 
free-soil and abolition mails, which was confined to the Territory. 
These two governing committees had the power to appoint persons 
who would arbitrate all difficulties arising in their respective districts. 
Persons so appointed were subject to removal, and responsible to the 
governing committee for any neglect of duty or abuse of power. In 
like manner, the governing committees were responsible to the execu¬ 
tive committee. 

All expenses of the above-named officials were to be borne by tho 
executive committee, who would derive the necessary aid from the 
eastern States and the Emigrant Aid Society of Boston. The execu¬ 
tive committee issued orders for all free-State men to give into the 
governing committees all the statements they could which would effect 
anything in weakening the pro-slavery party. He being further 
north than any of the other two who were on the committee with him, 
he had all the statements to take of those north of him, and any other 
direction that was convenient. 

There were many who gave him their statements against the legis¬ 
lature and private individuals. All those who gave him any state¬ 
ments, had it in such language as was capable of being construed into 
a more dangerous meaning for the pro-slavery party, than what the 
real definition should be. Many of them told him they were making 
use oflanguage that would make the pro-slavery party appear to the 
world more guilty than they in reality were ; and no matter how false 
a meaning was put on their statements, they would be easy in con¬ 
science if they could realize their object. Many told him, when called 
upon, they were willing to swear that thousands of Missourians came 
over and voted, although he saw none; but admitted to him that they 
saw no Missourians vote, nor did they know of any who did. He had 
heard A. H. Reeder urge the people to rebellion and bloodshed, while 
they listened to him as though he were one of the prophets and patri¬ 
archs of old. He had heard men say, who appeared to take and hold 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


91 


a high position among the abolitionists, openly boast that they had 
helped to run off negroes from the south into Canada, and hoped the 
day was near at hand when they would succeed in all their designs, 
and settle those gentlemen of color along the shores of Kansas, where 
they could make war on the institutions of the South—particularly of 
Missouri—till there would not he a slave left in it. Such are the prin¬ 
ciples of those who keep Kansas in a state of rebellion, and such are 
the men who are the leaders of the abolitionists—leading them on to 
thievery, treason, and death. 

He has heard Judge Johnson, of the United States supreme court 
for the Territory, often instruct the people that, when called on to 
swear in the Territory, they might swear to what suited them, and 
they would not he perjured, as there was no law in the Territory. 
Whilst in Lawrence as delegate to the convention of the free-State 
men to he held at Big Springs, he heard many of the people say many 
of their people returned after the spring election. There were a great 
many camps at Lawrence then. Some of those forming the camps 
told him that they would return to the States in the latter part of 
the fall. At the fall and winter election for a delegate to Congress, 
for a State constitution and the formation of a State government, the 
judges of the polls had instructions publicly, that in case of Indian or 
other troubles they might adjourn from day to day, and finally to 
any other district in the Territory, to hold their election. But the 
private instructions were, if pro-slavery men attempted to vote, and 
were likely to have a majority, they must adjourn from day to day, 
and finally to any free-soil district in the Territory. He heard 
many of the people in Lawrence curse the Emigrant Aid Society of 
Boston, and say if it did not pay them soon they would return to the 
States, for it had failed to pay them for some time. He was told by 
several of the emigrants in Lawrence that the Emigrant Aid Society 
of Boston paid the expenses of all men who would come out to 
Kansas to vote for it to he a free State. 

The following is an extract from the deposition of Andrew J. 
Francis: 

“ Offers were made to me by various persons to introduce me to a 
secret political organization. The only name I ever received as a 
nemher of the lodge was ‘ Kansas Regulator.’ The next morning 
I was conversing with Governor Reeder, Jas. H. Lane, G. P. Lowry, 
and several others, one by the name of Chapman and one by the 
name of Hornsby; hut both these gentlemen had merely come up to 
us as we were standing on the corner of the street talking. I had 
noticed black ribbons tied in the shirt-bosoms of several gentlemen ; 

I noticed one or two tied to Governor Reeder’s shirt-bosom. I made 
the inquiry as to what those black ribbons meant. Colonel Lane 
asked me to go with him, and he would show me something that 
would please me better than what I had seen the night before. The 
night before I had attended a masonic lodge. Colonel Lane was in 
the lodge while I was there. I made some reply to Lane, as though 
awaiting to go with him, saying that I would have to see something 
that would please me extraordinarily well, if it pleased me better than 
what I had seen the night before. I went with Colonel Lan« to the 


92 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


law-office of John Hutchison, as I afterwards found out. Governor 
Reeder did not go into the room where I was initiated. Doctor 
Robinson was standing just before the door, with a lady, I think. 
Colonel Lane asked him to leave the lady and go into the office with 
us. Robinson rather objected at first, but finally came in with us 
and said he would explain the nature of the organization he was 
about to initiate me into. The substance of the explanation was 
that Kansas was a beautiful country and well adapted to freedom, 
and the best territory in the world for the friends of freedom to 
operate on, more especially for those who were engaged in the free- 
white State cause. After proceeding in that strain for awhile, he 
asked me if I was willing to pledge my word and honor that I would 
keep secret \$hat I saw there and who I saw there, provided he would 
pledge his word and honor that there was nothing that would inter¬ 
fere with my duties as a citizen, or that was disloyal in any respect. 
'I replied that I was willing. He then gave me some other instruc¬ 
tions that I do not now recollect, of about the same import as the 
first. Colonel Lane then took me in hand and told me that he could 
administer the grand obligation, which was done by my repeating after 
him, as follows: 

‘ I, of my own free will and accord, in the presence of Almighty 
God and these witnesses, do solemnly swear that I will always hail, 
forever conceal, and never reveal any of the secrets of this organiza¬ 
tion to any person in the known world, except it be to a member of 
the order, or within the body of a just and legal council. I further¬ 
more promise and swear, that 1 will not write, print, stain, or indite 
them on anything movable or immovable, whereby the least figure or 
character may become intelligible to myself or any other person. I 
furthermore promise and swear, that I will at all times, and under all 
circumstances, hold myself in readiness to obey, even to death, the 
orders of my superior officers. I furthermore promise and swear, that 
I will at all times, and under all circumstances, use my influence to 
make Kansas a free-white State. I furthermore promise and swear, 
that all things else being equal, I will employ a free-State man in 
preference to a Missouri man, or a pro-slavery man. I furthermore 
promise and swear, that all business that I may transact, so far as in 
my power, shall be transacted with free-State men. I furthermore 
promise and swear, that I will at all times, and under all circum¬ 
stances, hold myself in readiness to take up arms in defence of free- 
State principles, even though it should subvert the government. I 
furthermore promise and swear, that I will at all times, and under all 
circumstances, wear upon my person the regalia of my office and the 
insignia of the order. I furthermore swear, that I will at all times, 
and under all circumstances, wear on my person a weapon of death. 
I furthermore promise and swear, that I will at all times, and under 
all circumstances, keep in my house at least one gun, with a full 
supply of ammunition. I furthermore promise and swear, that I will 
at all times, and under all circumstances, when I see the sign of dis¬ 
tress given, rush to the assistance of the person giving it, even when 
there is a greater probability of saving his life than of losing my 
own. I furthermore promise and swear, that I will, to the utmost of 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


93 


my power, oppose the laws of the so-called Kansas legislature. I 
furthermore promise and swear, that when I hear the words of danger 
given, I will repair to the place where the danger is. I furthermore 
promise and swear, that if any part of my obligation is at this time 
omitted, I will consider the same as binding when legally informed of 
it. I furthermore promise and swear, that, at the first convenient 
opportunity, I will commit this obligation to memory. To all of this 
I solemnly swear, without equivocation or self-evasion, binding my¬ 
self under the penalty of being declared a perjuror before Heaven and 
8. traitor to my country.’ 

“ I then remarked to Col. Lane, that that was a very serious obliga¬ 
tion. He replied it was ; and also stated that it was necessary for me 
to become acquainted with the signs and pass-words. The sign of 
recognition is given by placing the right thumb under the chin, and 
the fore-finger of the right hand by the side of the nose, quietly 
scratching or rubbing it two or three times. The answer to it was 
given oy placing the thumb and fore-finger of the left hand on the 
lower lip, as if rubbing it. The grip was given by locking the 
two first fingers of the right hand over each other. The words ac¬ 
companying the grip are these: The one giving you the grip would 
ask : £ Are you in favor of Kansas becoming a free State ? ’ The 
answer was : ‘I am, if Missouri is willing.’ The means by which 
persons procured admission into the council was, by going to the door 
the sentinel would then present himself. The person applying would 
say c Kansas,’ accenting the last syllable. The person would then 
advance t*o the centre of the room and salute the colonel, by placing 
his right hand just above his forehead. The regalia was this : The 
private members wore a black ribbon tied upon their shirt-bosoms ; the 
colonel wore a red sash ; the lieutenant-colonel a green sash ; the 
major a blue sash ; the captains white sashes ; the lieutenants yellow 
sashes ; the orderly sergeant a very broad black ribbon upon the shirt- 
bosom. Col. Lane then remarked to me that I had been made ac¬ 
quainted with the principles of the institution, and that it was the 
determination of the free-State party not to submit to the laws of the 
legislature, or to any opposition that might come from Missouri or any 
other quarter. I remarked to the Colonel that I was sworn to sup¬ 
port those laws in taking my oath as a lawyer, and that I considered 
that that oath was administered by a higher power than he exercised, 
and hence I should not keep the obligation he had given to me ; and 
under no circumstances would I do anything to subvert the institu¬ 
tions of the country, or place myself in opposition to the laws ; and 
he might depend upon it, I would expose it the first convenient oppor¬ 
tunity. I also told him I could not consistently keep both obligations 
that had been imposed upon me ; that I was also a member and min¬ 
ister of a religious denomination, and that it would not be consistent 
with my Christian duties to keep the obligation he had imposed on 
me ; that I should most certainly, when the subject came up, expose 
it. He stated then to me, that if that was «my determination, and I 
did express myself so publicly, I would hardly get away from the city 
with my life. I replied to him that I would express myself so under 
all circumstances, both in public and private.’’ 


94 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


It now being most fully shown, as the undersigned .believes, that 
the anti-slavery party formed secret political organizations of a mili¬ 
tary character to resist, with force of arms, the execution of the laws 
of the Territory, and to defend themselves against any effort which 
might be made by officers to enforce obedience to the laws and au¬ 
thorities of the Territory ; after preparing the minds of the people 
to embark in any measures, however reckless and desperate in their 
nature and characters, the primary objects of these seditions, secret 
associations were boldly developed at a convention held by the anti¬ 
slavery party at Big Springs on the 5th and 6th days of September, 
1855. But, before proceeding further in relation to this convention, 
the undersigned deems it proper to remark, that after the legis¬ 
lative election in March, 1855, Governor Reeder issued his procla¬ 
mation, convening the legislature at Pawnee city, upon the express 
understanding that if there were not sufficient accommodations 
there for the members and officers of the legislature, they could, 
strictly in accordance with the provisions of the organic act, adjourn 
to any other point in the Territory, and if they did so he would co¬ 
operate with them. In proof of this, reference is made to the testi¬ 
mony of the Rev. Thomas Johnson, a member of the council. The 
legislature consequently met at Pawnee city. They remained there 
but a short time, as they found no accommodations for the members 
atvd officers of the legislature, the great majority of them having to 
camp out and cook their own provisions, there not being boarding¬ 
houses in the place sufficient to receive and accommodate them. The 
cholera also broke out there, and several deaths occurred in conse¬ 
quence. The legislature then adopted a resolution adjourning to 
Shawnee Mission. It is evident that Pawnee city was not a suitable 
place for the convening of the legislature, because of the absence of all 
accommodations for members, as well as being 145 miles from the 
Missouri river, whence they derived chiefly their supplies for subsist¬ 
ence. The house in which they were convened had neither doors nor 
windows, and but a temporary floor. 

While in session, however, at Pawnee, the governor recognised them 
as a legally constituted legislative body, as will be more fully shown 
by reference to liis message to that body ; but, after they removed t*> 
Shawnee Mission, he vetoed all the bills they passed, of every de¬ 
scription, upon the ground that they were sitting then at a place not 
authorized by law—the only ground alleged. 

Meanwhile, “ The governor, instead of exercising constant vigilance, 
and putting forth all his energies to prevent or counteract the tenden¬ 
cies to illegality which are prone to exist in all imperfectly organized 
and newly associated communities, allowed his attention to be divert¬ 
ed from his official obligations by other interests, and himself set the 
example of a violation of law in the performance of acts which [as it 
seems] rendered it the duty of the President of the United States, in 
the sequel, to remove him from the office of chief executive magistrate 
of the Territory.” 

The undersigned, in proof of the want of accommodations at Pawnee 
city, refers to the testimony of Rev. Thomas Johnson, member of the 
council, A. S. Johnson, Thomas Barbee, Wm. G. Matthias, and other 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


95 


members of the legislature, as taken before a justice of the peace, 
and properly certified, which the undersigned begs to have consid¬ 
ered a part of this report. 

After the removal of Governor Reeder, chagrined as he evidently 
was, he is found an active member of the Big Springs convention, held 
on the 5th and 6th days of September ; at which convention, as it is 
proven by the testimony of Marcus J. Parrott, a free-State man, and 
a member of the free-State legislature, taken before your com¬ 
mittee, the following resolutions, drawn up in the hand-writing of 
Gov. Reeder, were adopted. They are taken by the undersigned from 
a certified copy of the proceedings of said convention, in evidence be¬ 
fore your committee, and are as follows: 

“ JResolved, That we owe no allegiance or obedience to the tyran¬ 
nical enactments of this spurious legislature ; that their laws have no 
validity or binding force upon the people of Kansas, and that every 
freeman amongst us- is at full liberty, consistently with all his obliga¬ 
tions as a citizen and a man, to defy and’resist them, if he chooses to 
do so. 

cc Resolved , That we will resist them, primarily, by every peaceable 
and legal means within our power, until we can elect our own repre¬ 
sentatives, and sweep them from the statute-book ; and that, as the 
majority of the supreme court have so far forgotten their official duty, 
have so far cast off the honor of the lawyer and the dignity of the 
judge, as to enter, clothed with the judicial ermine, into a partisan 
contest, and by an extrajudicial decision, given opinions in violation 
of all propriety, have prejudged our case before we could be heard, 
and have pledged themselves to these outlaws in advance to decide in 
their favor, we will, therefore, take measures to carry the question of 
the validity of these laws to a higher tribunal, where judges are un¬ 
pledged and dispassionate, where the law will be administered in its 
purity, and where we can at least have the hearing before the deci¬ 
sion. 

“ Resolved , That we cannot and will not quietly submit to surrender 
our great ‘ American birthright ’—the elective' franchise—which, first 
by violence, and then by chicanery, artifice, weak and wicked legisla¬ 
tion, they have so effectually accomplished to deprive us of, and that 
we with scorn repudiate the ‘ election law/ so-called, and will not 
meet with them on the day they have appointed for the election, but 
will ourselves fix ujion a day for the purpose of electing a delegate to 
Congress 

“ Resolved, That we will endure and submit to these laws no longer 
than the best interests of the Territory require, as the least of two 
evils, and will resist them to a bloody issue , as soon as we ascertain 
that peaceful remedies shall fail and forcible resistance shall furnish 
any reasonable prospect of success ; and that, in the mean time, we 
recommend to our friends throughout the Territory the organization 
and discipline of volunteer companies, and the procurement and pre¬ 
paration of arms.” 

And, finally, as the natural result of the foregoing proceedings of 
the free-soil party in the Territory, the laws were violated, their ex¬ 
ecution openly resisted by them, till at length came the difficulties at 
Lawrence, in the fall of 1855, and after the Big Springs convention * 

7 


96 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


in regard to which, as the most reliable testimony taken by your 
committee, the undersigned begs to refer to the evidence of Governor 
Wilson Shannon, which is as follows : That, as to the origin, pro¬ 
gress, and conclusion of the difficulties at Lawrence last fall, (1855,) 
he begs leave to refer to his two despatches to the President of the 
United States, with the accompanying documents—the first dated on 
the 28th day of November, and the second on the 11th day of Decem¬ 
ber, 1855—as containing what deponent believes to be a correct history 
and account of those transactions.’’ 

The following are the despatches and documents referred to by the 
witness: 


Executive Office, Shawnee Mission, 

Kansas Territory , November 28, 1855. 

Sir : Affairs in this Territory are daily assuming a shape of real 
danger to the peace and good order of society. I am well satisfied 
that there exists in this Territory a secret military organization which 
has for its object, among other things, resistance to the laws by force. 

Until within a few days past I have looked upon the threats of 
leading men and public papers who have placed themselves in an atti¬ 
tude of resistance to the laws, as not intended by those who made them 
to be carried into execution. I am now satisfied of the existence of this 
secret military organization, and that those engaged in it have been 
secretly supplied with arms and munitions of war, and that it is the 
object and purpose of this organization to resist the laws by force. 
The strength of this organization is variously estimated at from one 
to two thousand, but I have no satisfactory data from which to esti¬ 
mate its real strength, and I do not believe they can command for any 
given purpose more than one thousand men. They are said to be well 
supplied with Sharpe’s rifles and revolvers, and that they are bound 
by an oath to assist and aid each other in the resistance of the laws 
when called upon so to do. Independent of the disclosures made by those 
who formerly belonged to this association and the hints thrown out in 
some of the public journals in their interest, the most practical proof of 
the truth of these allegations consists in their own acts. A few days 
since a difficulty took place in Douglas county, some ten miles south of 
Lawrence, between one of these men and a man by the name of Cole¬ 
man, from Virginia, in relation to a claim; in which the former was shot 
and died immediately. Coleman was taken into custody for trial, by 
the sheriff of that county, and to avoid all ground of objection as to 
legal authority, Judge Lecompte was written to and requested to at¬ 
tend at the county seat (it being in his judicial district) and sit as an 
examining court. In the mean time a large body of armed men, said 
to be from three to four hundred, collected at and near Lawrence for 
the avowed purpose of rescuing Coleman from the sheriff and executing 
him without a trial. Coleman claims that he shot the man strictly in 
self-defence, and is willing to abide a judicial investigation and trial. 
On Monday last a warrant was issued against one of this band of men 
for threatening the life of one of his neighbors, and placed in the 
hands of the sheriff of the county for execution, who, with a posse of 
some ten men, arrested him on Tuesday night, and as he was convey- 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


97 


ing the prisoner to Lecompton, he was met about two o'clock in the 
morning by a band of these men, consisting of between* forty and fifty, 
all armed with Sharpe’s rifles and revolvers, who forcibly rescued the 
prisoner out of his hands, and openly proclaimed that there were no 
officers or law in this Territory. In the settlement in which these 
transactions took place there were from sixteen to twenty law and 
order families, and about one hundred free-soil families. At the last 
advices three of the houses of the former had been burnt down by this 
armed band. 

Cattle had been killed, and a considerable amount of corn and other 
personal property destroyed, and the whole law and order population 
of that neighborhood, induced by terror, had fled, except two families, 
whose lives were threatened. Helpless women and children have been 
forced by fear and threats to flee from their homes, and seek shelter 
and protection in the State of Missouri. Measures were being taken 
by the legal authorities to procure warrants against these lawless men, 
and have them arrested and legally tried. Under these circumstances 
the sheriff of the county has called on me for three thousand men to 
aid him in the execution of the warrants in his hands, and to protect 
him and his prisoner from the violence of this armed force. The force 
required by the sheriff is far beyond what I believe to be necessary, 
and indeed far beyond what could be raised in this Territory. From 
five to eight hundred men will be amply sufficient, I have no doubt, 
to protect the sheriff, and enable him to execute the legal process in 
Kis hands. With the view of giving to the sheriff the requisite aid, 
I have issued orders to Major General Richardson, of the northern 
division of militia of this Territory—a prudent and discreet man—a 
qopy of which I send you herewith. I also send you a copy of a 
request I have made of General Strickler, who resides in the adjoin¬ 
ing county to Douglas. These are the only orders I have thought it 
necessary to issue, by means of which I believe a sufficient force will 
be raised to protect the sheriff, and enable him to execute the legal 
process in his hands. 

The time has come when this armed band of men, who are seeking 
to subvert and render powerless the existing government, have to be 
met and the laws enforced against them, or submit to their lawless 
dominion. If the lives and property of unoffending citizens of this 
Territory cannot be protected by law, there is an end to practical gov¬ 
ernment, and it becomes a useless formality. 

The excitement along the border of Missouri is running wild, and 
nothing but the enforcement of the laws against these men will allay 
it. Since the disclosure of the existence and purposes of this secret 
military organization in this Territory, there has been much excite¬ 
ment along the borders of Missouri, but it has been held in check, 
heretofore, by assurances that the laws of the Territory would be en¬ 
forced, and that protection would be given to the citizens against all 
unlawful acts of this accociation. This feeling and intense excite¬ 
ment can still be held in subordination if the laws are faithfully ex¬ 
ecuted ; otherwise there is no power here that can control this border 
excitement, and civil war is inevitable. This military organization is 
looked upon as hostile to all southern men, or rather to the law and 
H. Rep. 200-7 



98 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


order party of tlie Territory, many of whom have relations and friends, 
and all have sympathizers, in Missouri, and the moment it is believed 
that the laws will not furnish adequate protection to this class of citi¬ 
zens against the lawless acts of this armed association, a force will 
he precipitated across the line to redress real and supposed wrongs 
inflicted on friends that cannot he controlled, or for the moment 
resisted. It is in vain to conceal the fact: we are standing on a 
volcano, the upheavings and agitations beneath we feel, and no one 
can tell the hour when an eruption may take place. Under existing 
circumstances the importance of sustaining the sheriff of Douglas 
county, and enabling him to executes his process, independent of other 
considerations connected with the peace and good order of society, will 
strike you at once; and to do this by the aid and assistance of the 
citizens of this Territory is the great object to be accomplished, to 
avoid the dreadful evils of civil war. I believe this can be done ; in 
this, however, I may be mistaken. No efforts shall be wanting on 
my part to preserve good order in the Territory, and I will keep you 
constantly advised of the progress and state of things here. 

I have the honor to be, your obedient servant, 

WILSON SHANNON, 

His Excellency Franklin Pierce. 


Headquarters, Shawnee Mission, 

Kansas Territory , November 27, 1855. 

Sir : Reliable information has reached me that an armed military 
force is now in Lawrence and that vicinity, in open rebellion against 
the laws of this Territory, and that they have determined that no pro¬ 
cess in the hands of the sheriff of that county shall be executed. I 
have received a letter from S. J. Jones, sheriff of Douglas county, 
informing me that he had arrested a man under a warrant placed in 
his hands, and while conveying him to Lecompton he was met by an 
armed force of some forty men, and that the prisoner was taken out 
of his custody, and open defiance bid to the law. I am also duly 
advised that an armed band of men have burnt a number of houses, 
destroyed personal propert}^, and turned whole families out of doors 
in Douglas county. Warrants will be issued against those men, and 
placed in the hands of the sheriff of Douglas county for execution. 
He has written to me, demanding three thousand men to aid him in 
the execution of the process of the law and the preservation of peace. 

You are, therefore, hereby ordered to collect together as large a 
force as you can in your division, and repair without delay to Lecomp¬ 
ton, and report yourself to S. J. Jones, the sheriff of Douglas county, 
together with the number of your forces, and render to him all the 
aid and assistance in your power, if required in the execution of any 
legal process in his hands. The forces under your command are to 
be used for the sole purpose of aiding the sheriff in executing the 
law, and for no other purpose. 

I have the honor to be, your obedient servant, 

WILSON SHANNON 

Mai or General William P. Richardson 



KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


99 


Headquarters, Shawnee Mission, 

Kansas Territory , November 27, 1855. 

Sir: I am tins moment advised, by letter from S. J. Jones, sheriff 
of Douglas county, that while conveying a prisoner to Lecompton, 
whom he has arrested by virtue of a peace warrant, he was met by a 
band of armed men, who took said prisoner forcibly-out of his posses¬ 
sion, and bid defiance to the execution of all law in this Territory. 
He has demanded of me three thousand men to aid him in the execu¬ 
tion of the legal process in his hands. As the southern division of 
the militia of this Territory is net organized, I can only request you 
to collect together as large a force as you can, and at as early a day 
as practicable report yourself, with the forces you may raise, to S. J. 
Jones, sheriff of Douglas county, and to give him every assistance in 
your power, in the execution of the legal process in his hands. 
Whatever forces you may bring to his aid are to be used for the sole 
purpose of aiding the said sheriff in the execution of the law, and no 
other. It is expected that every good citizen will aid and assist the 
lawful authorities in the execution of the laws of the Territory and 
the preservation of good order. 

Your obedient servant, 

WILSON SHANNON. 

General II. J. Strickler. 


Executive Office, Shawnee Mission, 

Kansas Territory , December 11, 1855. 

Sir : In my despatch to you of the 28th ultimo, I advised you of the 
threatened difficulties in relation to the execution of the laws of this 
Territory in Douglas county. The excitement which then existed con¬ 
tinued to increase, owing to the aggravated reports from Lawrence 
and that vicinity m relation to the military preparations that were 
being made to attack the sheriff and resist the execution of the laws. 
The excitement increased and spread, not only throughout this whole 
Territory, but was worked up to the utmost point of intensity in the 
whole of the upper portion of Missouri. Armed men were seen rush- 
i n o- from all quarters towards Lawrence, some to defend the place, 
and others, to demolish it. The orders I had issued to Major Gen¬ 
eral Richardson and General Strickler had brought to the sheriff of 
Douglas county a very inadequate force for his protection, wheri.com¬ 
pared with the forces in the town of Lawrence. Indeed, the militia of 
the Territory being wholly unorganized, no forces could be obtained 
except those who voluntarily tendered their aid to the sheriff, or to 
Generals Richardson and Strickler. The whole force in the Territory 
thus obtained did not amount to more than three or four hundred 
men, badly armed, and wholly unprepared to resist the forces m Law¬ 
rence, which amounted, at that time, to some six hundred men ; all 
remarkablv well armed with Sharpe’s rifles and other weapons, ihese 
facts becoming known across the line, in the State of Missouri, large 
numbers of men from that State, in irregular bodies, rushed to the 



100 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


county of Douglas, ancl many of them enrolled themselves in the 
sheriff’s posse. In this state of affairs, I saw no way of avoiding a 
deadly conflict hut to obtain the use of the United States forces at 
Fort Leavenworth, and with that view I addressed you a telegraphic 
despatch, and received on the 5th instant your very prompt and satis¬ 
factory reply of the 4th instant, a copy of which I immediately trans¬ 
mitted, by special despatch, to Colonel Sumner, with the request that 
he would accompany me with his command to the scene of difficulty. 
In reply, I was informed he would immediately do so, having no 
doubt that in due time proper instructions would be received from the 
War Department. Information, however, which I received from both 
parties, convinced me that my presence was necessary to avoid a con¬ 
flict, and without waiting for Colonel Sumner, I repaired to the seat 
of threatened hostilities, at the same time advising Colonel Sumner, 
by special despatch, of this movement. On my way to Lawrence, I 
met a despatch from Colonel Sumner, informing me that, upon reflec¬ 
tion, he had changed his determination, and that he would not march 
with his command until he had received orders from the proper de¬ 
partment, but that he would be ready to move with his command the 
moment such orders came to hand. I proceeded as rapidly as possible 
to the camp of General Strickler, on the Wakarusa, six miles east of 
Lawrence, and arrived in camp about three o’clock on the morning of 
the sixth instant. I found that General Strickler, as well as General 
Richardson, had very judiciously adopted the policy of incorporating 
into their respective commands all the irregular forces that had 
arrived. This was done with the view of subjecting them to military 
orders and discipline, and to prevent any unlawful acts or outbreaks* 
The great danger to be apprehended was from an unauthorized attack 
on the town of Lawrence, which was being strongly fortified, and had 
about one thousand and fifty men, well armed, to defend it, with two 
pieces of artillery, while, on the other side, there was probably in all 
near two thousand men, many of them indifferently armed, but having 
a strong park of artillery. I found in the camp at Wakarusa a deep 
and settled feeling of hostility against the opposing forces in Lawrence, 
and apparently a fixed determination to attack that place and demolish 
it and the presses, and take possession of their arms. It seemed to be 
a universal opinion in the camp that there was no safety to the law 
and order party in the Territory while the other party were permitted 
to retain their Sharpe’s rifles, an instrument used only for war purposes. 
After mingling with all the leading men in the Wakarusa camp, and 
urging on them the importance of avoiding a conflict of arms, that 
such a step would probably light the torch of civil war and endanger 
the very Union itself, I still found that there was a strong desire with 
all, and a fixed determination with many, to compel the forces in 
Lawrence to give up their arms. Believing that such a demand 
would lead to a conflict which, if once commenced, no one could tell 
where it would end, and seeing no way to avoid it except by the aid 
of the United States forces, I again wrote another communication to 
Colonel Sumner, and sent it to him by special despatch about three 
o’clock on the morning of the Tth instant, requesting his presence ; 
a copy of which I send you herewith, marked E. I received no reply 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


101 


until my return to this place, after the difficulty had been arranged. 
I send you a copy of this reply, marked F. Early on the morning 
of the 7th instant I repaired to the camp at Lawrence, and found 
them busily engaged in their fortifications and in drilling their 
forces, and had a full and satisfactory interview with the committee 
appointed by the forces in Lawrence, in relation to the impending 
difficulties. So far as the execution of the laws was concerned, we 
had no difficulty in coming to a satisfactory understanding. It was 
at once agreed that the laws of the Territory should have their regu¬ 
lar course, and that those who disputed their validity should, if they 
desired to do so, test that question in the judicial tribunals of the 
country; that, in the mean time, no resistance should be made to their 
due execution, and the citizens of Lawrence and vicinity were, when 
properly called on, to aid in the arrest of any one charged with their 
violation, and aid and assist in the preservation of the peace and good 
order of society; while, on my part, I gave them every assurance in my 
power that they should be protected in all their rights and defended 
against any unlawful aggressions. It is proper I should say, that 
they claimed that a large majority of them had always held and incul¬ 
cated the same views. The assurances I received entirely satisfied me 
that no one against whom a writ had issued was then in Lawrence; 
that they had all fled, and that they were harboring, concealing, or 
defending no one against whom a writ had been issued, and that here¬ 
after there would be no combined effort made to prevent the service of 
any process in the county of Douglas. This was entirely satisfactory, 
and all that had been desired. But to satisfy the forces that sur r 
rounded Lawrence, so that they could be induced to retire in order, was 
the great difficulty to be overcome. To issue an order to the sheriff 
to disband his posse , and to Generals Richardson and Strickler to dis¬ 
band their forces, would have been to let loose this large body of men, 
who would have been left without control to follow the impulse of 
their feelings, which evidently was to attack and. disarm the people 
of Lawrence. Early on the morning of the 8th, through the influ¬ 
ence of some leading men, I procured thirteen of the leading captains 
in the Wakarusa camp to be appointed a committee to confer with a 
committee from the Lawrence camp, to meet at Franklin, midway 
between the two hostile forces. I proceeded to the Lawrence camp, 
and returned to Franklin in the evening, with the committee, where 
the proposed interview took place. This interview, which lasted for 
some time, resulted in producing a better state of feeling, and the 
committee from the Wakarusa camp were satisfied to retire without 
doing anything more, and so reported to the army. This, with the 
active exertions of myself and others, produced a better feeling among 
the men, and by daylight on the morning of the 9th, I felt I could 
with safety order the forces to disband, and accordingly did so. 
They retired in order, and refrained from any act of violence, but it 
was evident there was a silent dissatisfaction at the course I had 
taken. But I felt conscious I was right, and that my course would 
be sanctioned alike by the dictates of humanity and sound policy. 1 
returned to Lawrence on the 9th, and remained until the morning of 
the. 10th, when, everything being quiet and safe, I returned to this 


102 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


place. Every tiling is quiet now; but it is my duty to say to you, 
frankly, that I have forebodings as to the future. The militia or 
volunteer corps cannot be relied on to preserve the peace in these civil 
party contests, or where partisans are concerned. A call on the 
militia will generally only bring in conflict the two parties. I am 
satisfied that the only forces that can be used in this Territory in en¬ 
forcing the laws, or preserving the peace, are those of the United 
States, and with this view I would suggest that the executive of this 
Territory be authorized to call on the forces of the United States when., 
in his judgment, the public peace and tranquillity, or the execution 
of the laws, may require their assistance. Should there be an out¬ 
break, it will most probably be sudden, and before orders can be ob¬ 
tained from Washington the crisis will have passed. I send you 
herewith the copies of various affidavits, letters, &c., which will give 
you some information in detail touching the subject-matter of this 
despatch. 

I have the honor to be, your obedient servant, 

WILSON SHANNON. 

His Excellency Franklin Pierce. 


United States of America, ? ss 
Territory of Kansas. $ 

Be it remembered, that on this sixth day of December, in the year 
A. D. 1855, personally appeared before me, J. M. Burrell, one of the 
associate justices of the supreme court of the said Territory of Kansas, 
Harrison Buckley, of lawful age, who being by me duly sworn, saith 
that he is a citizen of the county of Douglas, and has resided therein 
since 30th day of March last, and has resided during all that time at 
Hickory Grove ; that he was informed on good authority, and which 
he believed to be true, that Jacob Branson had threatened his life, 
both before and after the difficulty between Coleman and Dow, which 
led to the death of the latter. I understood that Branson swore that 
deponent should not breathe the pure air three minutes after I re¬ 
turned, this deponent at this time having gone down to Westport, in 
Missouri; that it was these threats, made in various shapes, that made 
this deponent really fear his life, and which induced him to make 
affidavit against the said Branson, and procure a peace warrant to 
issue, and be placed in the hands of the sheriff of Douglas county ; 
that this deponent was with the said sheriff (S. J. Jones) at the time 
the said Branson was arrested, which took place about two or three 
o’clock in the morning; that Branson was in bed when he was arrested 
by said sheriff; that no pistol or other weapon was presented at the 
said Branson by any one; that after the arrest, and after the company 
with the sheriff had proceeded about five miles in the direction of 
Lecompton, the county seat of Douglas county, the said sheriff and his 
posse were set upon by about between thirty and forty men, who came 
out from behind a house, all armed with Sharpe’s rifles, and presented 
their guns cocked, and called out who they were ; and said Branson 
replied that they had got him a prisoner ; and these armed men called 
on him to come away. Branson then went over on their side, and 



KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


103 


sheriff Jones said they were doing something they would regret here¬ 
after in resisting the laws ; that he was sheriff of Douglas county, and, 
as such, had arrested Branson. These armed men replied that they had 
no laws, no sheriff, and no governor, and that they knew no laws but their 
guns. The sheriff, being overpowered, said to these men, that if they 
took him by force of arms he had no more to say, or something to that 
import, and then we rode off. This deponent further states that there 
have been three houses burned in the Hickory Point settlement; one 
was this deponent’s house, another belonged to Josiah Hargis, and the 
third to said Coleman. All I had in the world was burned up, leaving 
my wife and children without clothing. This deponent’s wife and 
four children fled to Missouri, where they still remain with their rela¬ 
tives. The house of deponent was burned down, as it is said, shortly 
before daylight in the morning. The wives and children of both Cole¬ 
man and Hargis also fled to Missouri, where they still remain. There 
were about fifteen or sixteen law-abiding families in the settlement 
called the Hickory Grove settlement about the time these difficulties 
sprung up ; they have all been forced by terror and threats of these 
armed men to flee with their wives and children to the State of Mis¬ 
souri for protection, and still remain there. These armed men have 
repeatedly in my presence said that they would resist the law by force, 
and there was no law in this Territory. These threats have been re¬ 
peatedly made by these men for the last three months. And further 
this deponent saith not. 

H. H. BUCKLEY. 

Sworn and subscribed the day and year above stated, before me. 

J. M. BURRELL, 

Associate Justice Supreme Court , Kansas Territory . 


United States of America, ) 

Territory of Kansas . $ 

Be it remembered, that, on this 7th day of December, A. D. 1855, 
personally came before me, S. G. Cato, one of the associate justices of 
the supreme court of the Territory of Kansas, Josiah Hargis, of law¬ 
ful age, who being by me duly sworn, deposeth and saith, that on or 
about the 26th day of November, 1855, in Douglas county, sheriff 
Jones called upon me, with nine others, to act as a posse to arrest one 
Jacob Branson, under a peace warrant issued by Hugh Cameron, a 
justice of the peace ; that he proceeded with said sheriff to Hickory 
Point, in said county, and there arrested said Branson, with whom 
they proceeded in the direction of Lawrence. When near a house on 
the Wakarusa an armed mob of persons, amounting to between thirty 
and forty, rushed from behind said house, and by force did rescue said 
Branson out of the hands of said sheriff and posse, and in defiance of 
of said sheriff’s command, take said Branson and refuse to deliver 
him to said sheriff. That the said sheriff told the said mob that he 
held said Branson under a peace warrant properly issued by a legally 
authorized officer ; and that he was sheriff of said county of Douglas, 



104 


KANSAS- AFFAIRS. 


and charged with the execution of said writ. The leader of said mob 
replied to said officer that they knew him as Mr. Jones, but not as 
sheriff of Douglas county. He then told them that he would call out 
the militia to enforce the law. Their reply was that he could not get 
men to enforce said law. He told them then that he would call on the 
governor for assistance ; to which the said mob replied that they had 
no laws and no officers, and to pitch in. Said mob stood with their 
guns cocked and presented at the time of said rescue. 

This deponent further saith, one H. H. Buckley, of said county of 
Douglas, was with said sheriff at the time of said rescue, as one of 
said sheriff’s posse ; that during the same night on which said rescue 
was made, said affiant saw a light in the direction of said Buckley’s 
house, and that he fully believes said house was at that time burned. 
That he believes, from circumstances within his knowledge, that said 
house, together with his own, was burned by persons concerned with 
said mob; and that he has reason to believe that some of said houses 
were fired by said Branson aforesaid, assisted by a G-erman, commonly 
called Dutch Charley ; and they were counselled and advised thereto 
by one Farley. This affiant further says, that at the time of the res¬ 
cue of said prisoner he was at a house near Hickory Point, and that he 
there saw three women, who told him that there had been an armed 
force that day who notified them to leave, and all other pro-slavery 
families in the neighborhood ; and since, said families have left said 
neighborhood and fled to the State of Missouri. Said affiant says 
that he believes there were at that time in said neighborhood about 
fifteen pro-slavery families, nearly all of whom have fled, as aforesaid, 
to the State of Missouri, for protection. Said armed force was repre¬ 
sented to consist of from one hundred to one hundred and fifty armed 
men. 

S. N. HARGIS. 

Sworn and subscribed before me. S. G. CATO, 

Associate Justice of Kansas Territory. 

In relation to events which have transpired since the apppointment 
of your committee, the majority of your committee use this language: 
“ Your committee did not deem it within their power or duty to take 
testimony as to events which have transpired since the date of their 
appointment.” The undersigned begs to say, that the majority of 
your committee did, however, take testimony as to events which 
<c transpired since the date of their appointment.” They admitted to 
record the testimony of Pardee Butler, as to his being tarred and 
cottoned at Atchison, and that of others touching other events, all 
happening after the date of their arrival in Kansas Territory, and 
consequently after that of their appointment. Having admitted tes¬ 
timony as to some events of the kind, it was but justice to all parties 
that counter testimony, relating to those as well as other events of the 
same kind, should be admitted. And thus the undersigned thought, 
when the counsel of General Whitfield sought to introduce evidence 
as to the Pottawatomie Creek murders, and other outrages. Having 
established a precedent, it was inconsistent for the majority of your 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


105 


committee to refuse to take such testimony upon the ground that they 
had no “ power/’ and that it was not their “ duty” to investigate oc¬ 
currences that “ transpired since the date of their appointment.” 
They exercised such a “power,” and in part fulfilled such a “ duty,” 
when they took testimony prejudicial to the pro-slavery party ; but 
when testimony unfavorable to the free-State party was sought to be 
introduced, it was then, and not till then, that the majority of your 
committee concluded that it was not within “ their power or duty to 
take testimony as to events which transpired since the date of their 
appointment.” But the majority of your committee extricated 
themselves from the dilemma in which they had, in this regard, 
placed themselves, by expunging testimony favorable to the free- 
State party side—testimony already received in relation to alleged 
violence shown to Pardee Butler and others, so that they could 
consistently refuse to admit testimony as to outrages committed 
by the free-State people, which in savage barbarity and demoniac 
cruelty have scarcely an equal in the history of civilized man. But, 
notwithstanding that the majority deemed it without their “power 
or duty” to investigate matters occurring since the time of their ap¬ 
pointment, they have reported, and in their report dwelt with much 
warmth of expression upon, events which they admit “transpired 
since the date of their appointment”—events for which they do not 
claim to have a shadow of authority for their truth except vague 
rumor, and for which in fact there is none as yet shown ; and the tes¬ 
timony in regard to at least one of which events they had expunged 
from the record, to wit, the tarring and cottoning of Pardee Butler. 
The undersigned is of the opinion, that if the majority of your com¬ 
mittee are justified in reporting and dwelling upon occurrences for 
the truth of which they offer no proof, he is equally, if not much more 
strongly justified, in reporting and dwelling upon occurrences for the 
proof of which he has sworn testimony. The majority of your com¬ 
mittee having presented, in their report, scarcely anything but what 
is favorable to the abolition party in Kansas and prejudicial to the law 
and order party, the undersigned deems it a duty, no less to the House 
than to the country and the cause of truth, to give some facts on the 
other side favorable to the other party in Kansas, so that in present¬ 
ing both sides, the world may have a fair chance to get at the truth, 
and arrive at a just conclusion. The minority of your committee (the 
majority having alluded, in their report, to events as to which they 
refused to take testimony) has fortunately been furnished with sworn 
testimony to which he desires to refer, and which he considers im¬ 
portant to lay before the House and the public. First in order of 
time are the murders committed on the night of the 24th of May, 1856, 
on Pottawatomie creek. In this massacre, it is known that five per¬ 
sons were killed in one night, viz : Allen Wilkinson, William Sher¬ 
man, William P. Hoyle, father, and William and Drury Doyle, sons. 
The undersigned begs leave to refer to various affidavits which he ap¬ 
pends to and makes a part of his report. 

Allen Wilkinson was a member of the Kansas legislature—a quiet, 
inoffensive man. His wddow, Louisa Jane Wilkinson, testifies, that 
on the night of the 24th of May last, between the hours of midnight 



106 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


and day-break, she thinks, a party of men came to the house where 
they were residing and forcibly carried her. husband away ; that they 
took him in the name of the u Northern Army/’ and that next morn¬ 
ing he was found about 150 yards from the house, dead. Mrs. Wilk¬ 
inson was very ill at the time with measles. Here follows an extract 
from her affidavit: “ I begged them to let Mr. Wilkinson stay with 
me, saying that I was sick and helpless, and could not stay by myself. 
My husband also asked them to let him stay with me until he could 
get some one to wait on me ; told them that he would not run off, but 
would be there the next day, or whenever called for ; the old man who 
seemed to be in command looked at me, and then around at the child¬ 
ren, and replied, ‘ you have neighbors.’ I said, ‘ so I have, but 
they are not here, and I cannot go for them.’ The old man replied, 

£ it matters not,’ and told him to get ready. My husband wanted 
to put on his boots, and get ready, so as to be protected from the damp 
and night air, but they would not let him. They then took my hus¬ 
band away. * * * After they were gone I thought I heard my 

husband’s voice in complaint. * * Next morning Mr. Wilkinson’s 

body was found about 150 yards from the house, in some dead brush. 
A lady, who saw my husband’s body, said that there was a gash in 
his head and his side. Others said that he was cut in the throat twice. ’ ’ 
Mr. Wilkinson was a poor man, and of course his widow was left desti¬ 
tute ; but, regardless of this fact, they took away some property, in¬ 
cluding the only horse they had. Mrs. Wilkinson was presented at 
Westport, Missouri, with the necessary means to go to her father’s in 
Tennessee. She has two small children. Mrs. Wilkinson’s descrip¬ 
tion of the leader of the men who murdered her husband suits Cap¬ 
tain John Brown, a well known character in the abolition party. She 
says that her husband was a quiet man, and was not engaged in arrest¬ 
ing or disturbing anybody. He took no active part in the pro-slavery 
cause, so as to aggravate the abolitionists; but he was a pro-slavery 
man. 

The circumstances attending William Sherman’s assassination are 
testified to by Mr. James Harris, of Franklin county, Kansas. Mr. 
Sherman was staying over night at the house of Harris, when, on the 
night of the 24th of May, about two o’clock, Captain John Brown and 
party came there, and after taking some property and questioning 
Harris and others, Sherman was asked to walk out. Mr. Harris, in his 
affidavit, says: “Old man Brown asked Mr. Sherman to go out with 
him, and Sherman then went out w r ith Brown. I heard nothing more 
for about fifteen minutes. Two of the f Northern Army,’ as they styled 
themselves, staid with us until we heard a cap burst, and then these two 
men left. Next morning, about ten o’clock, I found William Sher¬ 
man dead in the creek near my house. I was looking for him; as he 
had not come back, I thought he had been murdered. I took Mr. 
William Sherman (body) out of the creek and examined it. Mrs. 
Whiteman was with me. Sherman’s skull was split open in two 
places, and some of his brains were washed out by the water ; a large 
hole was cut in his breast, and his left hand was cut off, except a little 
piece of skin on one side.” 

In relation to the assassination of James P. Doyle and sons, the 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


107 


affidavit of Mrs. Mahala Doyle, the widowed mother, was procured. 
William Doyle, one of the murdered, was twenty-two years of age ; 
Drury Doyle, the other, was twenty years of age. Mrs. Doyle was 
left very poor, with four children—one of them only eight years old— 
to support. Mrs. Doyle testifies : ‘'That a party of armed men came 
to her house about 11 o’clock, she thinks, on the night of the 24th of 
May; they first inquired where Mr. Wilkinson lived, and then made 
Mr. Doyle open his door, and went into the house, saying they were 
from the ‘Army of the North,’ and asking them to surrender.” Says 
Mrs. Doyle : “They first took my husband out of the house, then they 
took two of my sons—the two eldest, William and Drury—out, and 
then took my husband and the two hoys away. My son John (sixteen 
years old) was spared because I asked them, in tears, to spare him. In 
a short time afterwards I heard the report of pistols—two reports ; 
after which I heard moaning, as if a person was dying ; then I heard 
a wild whoop. * * * I went out next morning in search of them, 

and found my husband and William, my son, lying dead in the road, 
near together, about two hundred yards from the house. They were 
buried the next day. On the day of the burying I saw the dead body 
of my son Drury. Fear for myself and the remaining children in¬ 
duced me to leave the home which we had been living at, and I went 
to the State of Missouri.” 

The testimony of John Doyle goes to corroborate that of his mother. 
Here follows an extract: “I found my father and one brother (Wil¬ 
liam) lying dead in the road, about two hundred yards from the house. 
I saw my other brother lying dead on the ground, about one hundred 
and fifty yards from the house, in the grass, near a ravine. His fin¬ 
gers were cut off; his head was cut open ; there was a hole in his 
breast. William’s head was cut open, and a hole was in his jaw, as 
though it was made by a knife, and a hole was also in his side. My 
father was shot in the forehead and stabbed in the breast. I have 
talked often with northern men and eastern men in the Territory, and 
these men talked exactly like eastern men and northern men talk— 
that is, their language and pronunciation were similar to those of 
eastern and northern men with whom I had talked. An old man 
commanded the party ; he was of dark complexion, and his face was 
slim. My father and brothers were pro-slavery men, and belonged 
to the law and order party.” 

There seems to be little or no doubt that a certain notorious leader 
of the free-State party (as they call themselves) in Kansas, whose 
name it is not here deemed proper to give, was at the head of the 
party engaged in this fiendish massacre. Mr. Harris testifies that 
one John Brown, one of the leaders of the free-State party, was en¬ 
gaged in the killing of Sherman, and it will hardly be doubted that 
they who murdered Sherman also killed the rest—all being murdered 
on the same night and in the same neighborhood. Those who were 
killed, it is testified, were pro-slavery people; and the undersigned 
has no hesitation in saying that these ill-fated men were deprived of 
their lives, and their wives and children made widows and orphans, in 
consequence of the insurrectionary movements instigated and set on 
foot by the reckless leaders of the Topeka convention. 



108 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


Next in order are the outrages committed on the property of Mor¬ 
ton Bourn and that of J. M. Bernard. The affidavit of Mr. Bourn 
shows that, on the night of Wednesday, the 28th day of May, 1856, 
a party of abolitionists entered his house forcibly, threatened to tako 
his life if he did not leave the Territory immediately; took all the 
money he had, which they said they wanted to carry on the war. 
They also took guns, saddles, and horses, and then robbed his store 
of various articles. Mr. Bourn, on oath, says: “I own slaves, and 
have a crop of corn and wheat growing. Have never taken any active 
part with the pro-slavery party, only voted the pro-slavery ticket, and 
was for sustaining the laws. * * * These men said I must leave 

in a day or two or they would kill me, or hinted as much—said I 
would not fare well, or words to that effect. I left for fear of my life 
and the lives of my family. They said that the war was commenced, 
that they were going to fight it out, and drive the pro-slavery people 
out of the Territory, or words to that amount. The men that robbed 
my house and drove me away from my property were abolitionists, or 
free-soilers. * * * I believe they hated me so because I am a pro- 

slavery man, and in favor of the Territorial laws, and because I served 
on the last grand jury at Lecompton.” 

But the most flagrant case of robbery that occurred while your com¬ 
mittee were in Kansas was the plundering of Mr. Joab Bernard’s store 
and premises. Mr. Bernard is quite a young man, and of highly re¬ 
spectable family. While prosecuting his business, he was warned that 
his life was in danger, and was compelled to leave his home for safety; 
and during his absence his store was robbed of nearly four thousand 
dollars’ worth of goods and money, and his premises of cattle and 
horses‘of the value of at least one thousand more. The facts of this 
case are testified to by Messrs. John Miller and Thomas S. Hamilton. 
Mr. Bernard testifies himself as to his life being threatened, and the 
amount of goods in his store and other property on the premises. 
Messrs. Miller and Hamilton corroborate his testimony, and the un¬ 
dersigned makes their depositions a part of his report. St. Bernard, 
J. M. Bernard’s place, is situated in Douglas county, on the Califor¬ 
nia and Fort Scott road, about thirty miles from Lecompton. The 
robbery took place on the 27tli day of May, 1856. In his affidavit, 
Mr. Miller says : “I was in the store with Mr. Davis. Whilst there 
a party of thirteen men came to the store on horseback, armed with 
Sharpe’s rifles, revolvers, and bowie-knives. They inquired for Mr. 
Bernard.. I told them that he had gone to Westport. One of them 
said to me, ‘You are telling a God damned lie,’ and drew up his 
gun at me. Some of them came into the store, and the rest remained 
outside. They called for such goods as they wanted, and made Mr. 
Davis and myself hand them out, and said if we ‘ didn’t hurry’ they 
would shoot us. They had their guns ready. After they had got the 
goods—they wanted principally blankets and clothing—they packed 
them upon their horses and went away. Mr. Joab Bernard is a pro¬ 
slavery man.” Mr. Miller recognised one of the party as an active 
free-State man. They on the next day came back with a wagon, and 
took the remainder of the goods in the store, except about one hun¬ 
dred and fifty dollars’ worth—including flour, sugar, coffee, bacon, 


KANSAS AFFAIRS. 


109 


and all kinds of provisions, as well as two fine horses, three saddles, 
two bridles, and all the money there was in the store. In the conclu¬ 
sion of his affidavit, Mr. Miller says: “ When they first came, they 
looked up at the sign, and said they would like to shoot at the name.’' 
The affidavits accompanying this report are full and explanatory, and 
the undersigned begs to make them a part of his report. They are 
sworn to before a justice of the peace for Jackson county, Missouri, 
and the seal of the Jackson county court is attached to the clerk’s cer¬ 
tificate, as to the official character of the justice of the peace. The 
undersigned thinks that, in reviewing these outrages, he did not in¬ 
appropriately characterize the Pottawatomie creek murders as instances 
cfi* “savage barbarity and demoniac cruelty,” while the robberies of 
Bourn and Bernard are almost without parallel in the history of crime 
in this country. In this connexion, the undersigned deems it proper 
to state that the report so currently circulated throughout the country, 
to the effect that the lamented Wilkinson, Sherman, and the Doyles 
were caught in the act of hanging a free-State man, and were shot by 
a party of free-soilers, is without the least foundation in truth—that it 
is entirely false. 

In conclusion, the undersigned begs to report the following facts 
and conclusions, as he believes, established by the testimony and sanc¬ 
tioned by the law: 

First. That at the first election held in the Territory under the 
organic act, for delegate to Congress, Gen. John W. Whitfield re- 
dved a plurality of the legal votes cast, and was duly elected such 
delegate, as stated in the majority report. 

Second. That the Territorial legislature was a legally constituted 
body, and had power to pass valid laws, and their enactments are 
therefore valid. 

Third. That these laws, when appealed to, have been used for the 
protection of life, liberty and property, and for the maintenance of 
law and order in the Territory. 

Fourth. That the election under which the sitting delegate, John- 
W. Whitfield, was held, was in pursuance of valid law, and should be 
regarded as a valid election. 

Fifth. That as said Whitfield, at said election, received a large 
number of legal votes without opposition, he was duly elected as a 
delegate to this body, and is entitled to a seat on this floor as such. 

Sixth. That the election under which the contesting delegate, An¬ 
drew H. Reeder, claims his seat, was not held under any law, but in 
contemptuous disregard of all law ; and that it should only be re¬ 
garded as the expression of a band of malcontents and revolutionists, 
and consequently should be wholly disregarded by the House. 

Seventh. As to whether or not Andrew H. Reeder received a 
greater number of votes of resident citizens on the 9th, than J. W. 
Whitfield did on the 1st of October, 1855, no testimony was taken 
by the committee, so far as the undersigned knows, nor is it material 
to the issue. 

All of which is respectfully submitted. 

M. OLIVER. 







0 


» 



\ 


« 






















t 



















) 




♦ 





i 


























IBJl'32 











* A 


<S> 

S& • J-SSN\ # 

< n % <5nS\\\ n'^L * *y „ 

o V . . •** o* 


*° •** 



-VW{F*»» * •,v -rWA^' * 

<U. ' ••' J> %. ••'' .A <* *'.Y^' I 

0 7#/rp^_ o ^ -P, C^l 

■*U-a 4 ■ 


4°, 




; ^ , ^r* O ^ 

<$» * # i i • a > O * 

< * o A V , •. , 

^ <s. v *» 



c*^ * 

* <*> ti> o 

. <£*,. « 

» • • *0 ” o I t 




y, JF oj 

• “ 0 * ^ u *>> *•*'* sF \ 
J> Si**'. * , v s^Lr.m 



* \w '~r t - » • <- 

> ,o* t • - •. V > s 

•^A< **_ .V ' 



■<■4 



4°* 



o V 


* v^ <* *'Trr«' &*- V h 

4 •“•■*. >>*, 0^ • 1 "-. '"o ,4 V 

» V ^ '&r(f?Z?z k’ ^ 

0/t * 'J£mzZ^k* '**- A 






0*1 


£ *> 

V . « • o. ft, 



,f •* *>° VSsIfS^ ^ ■*■ 

r ° 0 -T^V a° <<* -T^-* <Y e> o 

... 't* “ * a° "' <y °4. * • -• ,«o ; 

V .4# \y * \/ ~ 

, y s°z°' r \ ,o^ * 0 ,4 s ,...,% •• ,./ 

.*^0r. %. ^ *vg^»*’ y .-^v v .«« 

V*- T ’'y r V^v' y' v- 

y< } ; ■' - y; °a> •*,sjW^;y • tT 

’ * '-CjX !> ’V '\'vr ♦.** -^A "1 ° C : ' r. O 

*..* <0^ C> '«»•*'» A ^ A • is v *_ 

!> , CT .*'■ '» O c. 0 *'®^ r»^ t » • *t* <y 

V/ * ae/t ???-,' 9 • .jr^SN\ .* *P /U t rSl^* - °-» -Jy 

•Ci. « A_ V - ‘^NV\[l%-‘ V\ \ ° y I. 




.4©* 




» ♦ O. 



s *<' Ml 




4°* 



O K I 



O • * 





J-' o 

• y y . AVr t<. a 4, *‘- 
T?' *IPm* «<*’ 0 

; > v -^ , 0 ^ : 

aV V. '••* aO v 

2 .- 4 ^ • l U«^’'' .-0^ t **v;» 'o av c _ 

<N ^ <?NN.vAn' , %. * vr ^ ^ O aJ <?■ • r-i^cy. <• <p 

..v^Pi. ^.A-e v_.v 


O' 


.4 0 




<iN 


t • o 



o y- 



V.|‘ ,0* ’O, 

f o* .•-*. V 

0 •» o 



~ r*z//nij** 1 yT ” * 0v ^, £ °* 

V . °+ *•■">’ a 0 tf. '77,-' y 

^ v * s *,^ « • o A . v^ . . # 

«y ^/\ ° ” aV*\ 1 o c> ^ 

• V •<fv^* ^ ^ v o W * 

'o. T * a, ^ 

aV „ Aa y • • * 4\J O 'o • * a 

AT c- ° " • ♦ . W / . ^ A 

r* . ” ^ Al* . • ^Vv..' •?_ c° i'-^*. 9 a -J, 1 * 




’. 0 41 * 

c iM* /'%'' 

« V 0 0 , 0 J < ^ 


'ey , * * o, <> A V , # 





' • • • * 

A .•?•* ^ r <y 

IfL Ofe^ oV 5 *^ 





'•'- O' 


<c 

.0' V *• •" •’ S?' '% 

0^ * 1 • °* ^ V .‘iJflw/- 4 ' C 

->Vr. ^ .*♦ / 



% '••• a 
* U ,WS2« 


MAY 81 

ST. AUGUSTINE „H 

I. FLA. ' »T» * ,lP" ^ 

, V 

I »V- 



















